Pope Michael

POPE MICHAEL TIMELINE

1958 (October 9):  Pope Pius XII died.

1959 (January 25):  The new pope, John XXIII, announced his intention to summon a general council in Rome.

1959 (September 2).  David Bawden was born in Oklahoma City.

1962–1965:  The Second Vatican Council was held in Rome.

1969 (April 5):  Pope Paul VI promulgated a new Roman Order of the Mass, colloquially known as the Novus Ordo.

1970:  French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

1970–1973:  The new Roman Missal, translated into the vernacular, was gradually implemented throughout the Catholic world, drastically limiting the possibility of using the pre-conciliar Order of the Mass.

1972:  The Bawden family stopped attending Novus Ordo parishes and sought Masses, said by traditionalist priests, including priests from SSPX.

1973:  Excommunicated Mexican Jesuit Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga published Sede Vacante, arguing that Paul VI was not a valid pope and that a new conclave should be held.

1976 (May 22):  Archbishop Lefebvre confirmed David Bawden in Stafford, Texas.

1977 (September):  Bawden was admitted to SSPX’s seminary in Ecône, Switzerland.

1978 (January):  Bawden was transferred from Ecône to the SSPX seminary in Armada, Michigan.

1978 (December):  Bawden was dismissed from the seminary

1979:  The Bawden family moved to St Marys, Kansas, where David Bawden worked at the SSPX-run school.

1981 (March):  Bawden resigned from his work at the school and left SSPX.

1981–1983:  Vietnamese Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh Thuc consecrated sedevacantist bishops who, in their turn, consecrated other bishops for work in the United States.

1983 (26 December):  David Bawden signed an open letter arguing that none of the traditionalist groups conferred valid sacraments as they lacked proper jurisdiction.

1985:  Bawden wrote “Jurisdiction during the Great Apostasy,” developing his ideas about the lack of sacramental validity in the traditionalist movement.

1987:  Bawden began to be convinced that a new conclave would be possible.

1988:  Bawden examined, and for some time believed in, the claim that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected pope in the 1963 conclave but was forced to decline.

1989 (March 25):  Bawden took a vow to work towards the election of a pope.

1989 (May):  Mainly based on earlier writings, Teresa Stanfill Benns and David Bawden started preparing a book where the case for the conclave was expounded.

1990 (January):  Benns and Bawden published Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century? It was distributed to sedevacantist clergy and laypeople calling for a papal election.

1990 (16 July):  A conclave with six electors was held in Belvue, Kansas.  Bawden was elected pope, taking Michael I as his papal name.  The Vatican in Exile was established.

1993:  The Bawden family moved to Delia, Kansas.

2000:  Pope Michael initiated an active online ministry.

2006:  The group planned the ordination and consecration of Pope Michael, but the ceremonies were canceled shortly before the event should take place.

2007:  Teresa Benns and two others who had participated in the 1990 conclave left, denouncing the validity of the election and, consequently, Bawden’s papal claims.

2011 (December 9-10):  Independent Catholic bishop Robert Biarnesen ordained Pope Michael, a priest, consecrated him a bishop, and crowned him pope.

2013:  Pope Michael moved to Topeka, Kansas.

2022: (August 2):  Pope Michael died in Kansas City.

2023 (July 29):  Archbishop Rogelio del Rosario Martínez was elected the successor of Pope Michael at a conclave in Vienna. He took Michael II as his papal name.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

David Bawden (1959–2022) was elected Pope Michael I in a 1990 conclave in Kansas.  [Image at right] He was neither the first nor the last man to become an alternative pope during the twentieth century. There have been dozens of others who claimed that they, not the vastly more recognized pope in Rome, are the true leader of the Catholic Church. Generally, they argue that we live in an era of general apostasy and that the modern church, particularly after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), has nothing to do with true Catholicism. Several of the latest Roman pontiffs were antipopes and leaders of a new non-Catholic religion (cf. Lundberg 2020 and forthcoming). Most alternative popes assert that they were elected through direct heavenly intervention, and David Bawden was the first elected in an alternative conclave. He claimed the pontificate for thirty-two years, leading a small group of followers.

The Second Vatican Council (a meeting of more than 2000 bishops) was arguably the most crucial event in modern Catholic history. Summoned by Pope John XXIII (1881–1963), the bishops met for four long sessions from 1962 through 1965. Eventually, Pope Paul VI (1897–1978) promulgated the final documents.

According to John XXIII, the council should be encompassed in the term aggiornomento (Italian for “updating”). During the conciliar sessions, the bishops debated many central theological issues: revelation, the church and its relation to modern society, liturgy, mission, education, freedom of religion, ecumenism, relations to non-Christians, and the role of bishops, priests, religious and laity. Though interpretations of their radicality differ, the final documents were very different from the original schemata (drafts) that the preparatory committees presented to the conciliar fathers. The changes became more substantial than initially expected.

During the council, there was a small but vocal group of so-called traditionalist bishops and theologians who more or less actively opposed many of the changes. The vast majority, however, signed the final documents. Even in the case of the much-discussed Dignitatis humanae, the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, eventually, only three percent of the more than 2,300 bishops present voted against it. (For a detailed study on the deliberations and conflicts at Vatican II, see O’Malley 2008).

Building on Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, in 1969, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new Roman Order of the Mass, often referred to as the Novus Ordo. It replaced the 1962 revision of the so-called Tridentine Mass, decreed by Pope Pius V in 1570. Soon, the new Missal was translated into many vernacular languages and implemented worldwide from 1970 onwards. The clergy had to accept the new liturgical books, and the possibility of saying Mass according to the old rite was increasingly difficult and, with few exceptions, impossible.

Though many Catholics welcomed or, at least, accepted the changes, groups of clergy and lay people, from the late 1960s onwards, felt betrayed and bewildered by the post-conciliar development. The new Order of the Mass, including the use of the vernacular, was the most apparent change noticed by ordinary Catholics. Opponents claimed that the Novus Ordo fundamentally changed the sacrificial character of the Mass. Some wondered how bishops, particularly the Roman pontiff, could endorse changes that they thought contradicted traditional Catholic teachings. (On post-conciliar traditionalism and the Mass reform, see, e.g., Cuneo 1997 and Airiau 2009).

In 1959, the same year John XXIII summoned what would be known as the Second Vatican Council, David Allen Bawden, the future pope Michael, was born in Oklahoma City. His mother, Clara (“Tickie”), [Image at right] was a cradle Catholic, while his father, Kennett, was a convert from Protestantism. The family was actively practicing parishioners, and David Bawden felt an early vocation to the priesthood.

In several of his written works, Pope Michael describes the family’s gradual alienation from the post-conciliar church. By the mid-1960s, some parishioners, including his parents, had noticed changes in the preaching and teaching of the catechism. However, changes became much more evident by 1971, when the Novus Ordo was introduced. (If not otherwise stated, Bawden’s biography and his group’s development are based on Pope Michael 2005, 2006, 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2020.)

In late 1972, the Bawdens decided not to attend Novus Ordo churches anymore, instead approaching priests solely saying the traditional Mass. Such traditionalist clergy sometimes only arrived in the city a few times a year. By 1973, the Bawdens met priests from the newly founded and rapidly growing Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Like other traditionalist groups, the Society had no permanent presence in Oklahoma, and priests arrived from Texas to say Mass in private homes, including Bawden’s (cf. The Daily Oklahoman, July 22, 1978).

SSPX was founded in 1970 by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905–1991), who was increasingly critical of the conciliar reforms. Its original vision was to educate seminarians who should continue saying the Tridentine Mass. SSPX’s center was in Swiss Ecône. The Society received provisional permission from the local bishop and soon attracted many seminarians. During the next couple of years, their activities were supervised by both diocesan and papal authorities. In 1974, Lefebvre wrote a Declaration where he saw the Vatican II and the post-conciliar development as signs of “neo-Modernist and the neo-Protestant tendencies,” in contrast to the “Eternal Rome, the Mistress of wisdom and truth.”

In 1975, the diocese decided not to renew SSPX’s status, ordering Lefebvre to disband the organization, and the pope publicly rebuked him, something almost unheard of. Lefebvre was explicitly forbidden to ordain priests for the SSPX. He did so anyway and was suspended. Still, despite the verdicts by the diocese and the Holy See, the SSPX activities continued and grew in France, Switzerland, and Germany, but not least in the United States, where they opened up a seminary in Armada, Michigan, in 1974, and established mass centers in many places. Lefebvre was very critical of the conciliar post-developments and the teachings of Pope Paul VI. In 1976, he referred to the Novus Ordo as a “bastard Mass,” and though he never explicitly declared either Paul VI or John Paul II heretics pope, he stated that a future pope could pass such a verdict. (On Lefebvre and SSPX, see, e.g., Sudlow 2017 and, for an inside perspective, see Tissier de Mallerais 2002).

However, other groups went further, claiming that Paul VI was a manifest heretic and antipope; therefore, the Holy See was vacant, a position later known as sedevacantism. One early advocate was Francis K. Schuckardt (1937–2006), who, from the late 1960s onwards, traveled the United States denouncing the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo, claiming that Paul VI was a false pope. His group became known as the Fatima Crusade. Still, after an independent Catholic bishop had consecrated Schuckardt in 1971, it was formally known as the Tridentine Latin Rite Church, though understood as nothing else but the Catholic Church. With centers in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and later in Spokane, Washington, they counted thousands of members and large religious communities. (On Schuckardt, see Cuneo 1997:102–13).

Another early sedevacantist exponent was the excommunicated Mexican Jesuit Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga (1899–1976). In several texts written in the early 1970s, he declared Paul VI a manifest heretic, an antipope, and even the Antichrist. He argued the need for a new conclave to solve the problem, went to Rome to explain his position to well-known traditionalist cardinals but met no support, and then tried to convince traditionally minded bishops. (On Sáenz y Arriaga, see Pacheco 2007).

According to Bawden, on May 22, 1976, while visiting Stafford, Texas, Sáenz y Arriaga met Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to present his case. The latter did neither assume the sedevacantist position nor the need for a new conclave. The same day the two traditionalists met, Lefebvre confirmed David Bawden. According to Bawden’s later testimonies, the place bubbled with rumors about the papal question and the possibility of a new conclave. The problem with this assertion is that Sáenz y Arriaga died in late April 1976. However, Bawden never explicitly claimed that he had met Sáenz y Arriaga but mentioned that two other Mexican sedevacantist priests were present. That would be possible, and later the community in Stafford would turn to the sedevacantist position. What is clear is that Sáenz y Arriaga and Lefebvre did meet, but that was in France in 1973.

In 1977, aged eighteen, Bawden was admitted to the SSPX seminary at Swiss Ecône, beginning his studies for the priesthood. The more natural solution, as he did not know French, was to study at the SSPX seminary in Armada, but he was informed that it was full. Still, in early 1978, he was transferred there (cf. Daily Oklahoman, July 22, 1978).

The papal question and the possible sede vacante were much discussed within the SSPX. Bawden mentioned that in 1977, he heard an SSPX priest publicly declaring the Holy See vacant and that someday a pope had to be elected. According to Bawden, in the early 1980s, most SSPX priests in the United States were de facto sedevacantists. They thought Lefebvre was too diplomatic in his contacts with the Holy See, especially after the election of John Paul II (1920–2005). Many priests left or were expelled from SSPX for holding sedevacantist views, refusing to pray for the pope in Mass, and not wanting to use the 1962 Missal, revised by John XXIII, but stuck to the pre-1955 editions. (On sedevacantism, see Airiau 2014. For a U.S. inside perspective, See Cekada 2008).

David Bawden’s stay at the SSPX seminary in Armada would be brief, and towards the end of 1978, he was dismissed. In his later texts, Bawden claims that he was given no reason for the decision. Though he successfully appealed to Marcel Lefebvre, who stated that he would be re-admitted to one of the SSPX seminaries, in the end, he was not.

In 1979, the Bawden family moved to St. Marys, Kansas, a small town that had become one of SSPX’s district headquarters. There, David Bawden was employed at the boarding school recently opened by the SSPX. He left work in March 1981. In his later writings, Bawden stated he encountered many “un-Catholic things going on” and chose to leave. At the same time, he also abandoned SSPX for good.

Several families had moved to St. Marys in search of a traditionalist haven. Still, they harshly criticized the SSPX district superior, who also was the school’s rector, and questioned the school’s economic basis. Some of the disenfranchised members left the town, while others stayed. According to articles published in The Kansas City Star in 1982, the superior had banished several families, including the Bawdens, from entering campus and forbade them from receiving the sacraments from any other priest (The Kansas City Star, April 18 and 19, 1982).

Leaving his work at the school, in the following years, David Bawden made a living as, e.g., a real estate agent, a furniture maker, and a homeschool tutor. Realizing that it would be difficult to become a Catholic priest under current circumstances, Bawden approached various traditionalist priests, seeking advice. Still, according to him, none of them was forthcoming. At the same time, he pursued theological studies on his own, gathering an extensive collection of older Catholic literature, mainly from closed-down seminary libraries (cf. Des Moines Register, November 4, 1990).

In the early 1980s, the traditionalist scene in the United States changed as several sedevacantist groups received bishops of their own. Vietnamese Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-din Thuc (1897–1984), who had lived in exile in Europe for two decades, stepped forward as a prolific consecrator. The bishops Thuc consecrated from 1976 onwards was a very heterogeneous group, but he did provide apostolic succession to a few sedevacantists, who could ordain priests and consecrate bishops. In 1982, Mexican Thuc-bishop Moisés Carmona-Rivera (1912–1991) consecrated George J.Musey (1928–1992), who, in his turn, almost immediately consecrated, Louis Vezelis (1930–2013), a bishop.

Thuc also consecrated Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers (1898–1988), who held a somewhat different position, generally known as sedeprivationism. He claimed that the pope was validly elected and that the Holy See was “materially occupied,” but as the elected pope was a heretic, it was not “formally occupied.” There was no true pope, but he would become one if he abjured from his heresies and confessed the true Catholic faith. Laurier consecrated Robert Fidelis McKenna (1927–2015), a bishop active in the United States. (On Thuc and his consecrations, see Jarvis 2018a, cf. Boyle 2007a).

In the early 1980s, the question about a possible sede vacante primarily dealt with Paul VI and his successors and whether they had not been validly elected or had fallen into heresy after their election. At this time, the validity of the papacy of John XXIII was not a significant issue, even if traditionalists were critical of many of his teachings and often considered him at least a dubious pope. Still, some held that he was not validly elected either and that there had been no true pope after the death of Pius XII in 1958 (Airiau 2014).

On December 26, 1983, Bawden wrote an open letter arguing that Traditionalist priests administered the sacraments without proper jurisdiction and necessary papal licenses. They lost their office and incurred excommunication upon themselves. During the Great Apostasy, there was a time when sacraments, including the Mass, would not be celebrated. As a result, Bawden distanced himself from the traditionalist movement, and in 1985, he published another letter on the same issues, presenting more details. (The letters were re-published in, e.g., Pope Michael 2013b).

In 1988, Bawden heard about the reports that traditionalist Cardinal Giuseppe Siri (1906–1989), archbishop of Genua, had been elected in the 1963 conclave taking the papal name Gregory XVII. Still, due to Zionist, Masonic, and Communist threats, he was hindered from accepting office. Instead, Cardinal Montini (Paul VI) was elected in his place.

The Cardinal Siri thesis was initially presented by a small group of French traditionalists and convinced people in the United States, too. In 1988, Peter Tran Van Khoat, a Vietnamese who lived in Port Arthur, Texas, and claimed to be a Catholic priest went to Rome to investigate the matter. During their meeting, Siri said nothing about the election but referred to the vow of silence. In 1988, Bawden traveled to Khoat to talk about the matter and spent some time with his congregation. In his later writings, Bawden played down his interest in the Siri thesis, but in correspondence from 1988, he wrote that he believed that Siri was the pope and would submit to his authority. In any case, Siri died in 1989 without officially claiming the papacy. (On the Siri thesis, see Cuneo 1997:85-86; for evidence of Bawden’s views in 1988, see Hobson 2008).

From the early 1980s, several individuals and small groups on both sides of the Atlantic called for a conclave to re-establish papal jurisdiction; they were known as conclavists. In 1987, Bawden became convinced that it would be possible, and even necessary, to convene a conclave, including laypeople. On March 25, 1989, he took a formal vow to work toward the election of a pope:

We bind ourselves by this vow to place all our efforts toward the accomplishment of a papal election to end the current Sede Vacante. We shall not encumber ourselves with worldly pursuits, but will pursue Thy Kingdom instead until the completion of the task.

In May 1989, Bawden and his friend Teresa Stanfill Benns began compiling a series of earlier and new texts presenting the case for a conclave; Benns was the principal author. The result was a sizeable book titled Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century? [Image at right] It was published in January 1990 and sent to known sedevacantist clergy and lay people in North America, Europe, and other places. In all, some 200 copies were distributed to more than twenty countries.

The gist of the book was the argument that the Holy See had been vacant from 1958 onwards, that there are no valid cardinals, and that the current bishops and priests lack jurisdiction. Still, the church is indefectible; it will exist until the end. A sede vacante could be prolonged but not perpetual. According to the authors, there was a possibility, and thus a duty for the small remnant, including laypeople, to elect a pope. Before that, however, they had to adjure their heretical positions and profess the true Catholic faith. After that, they could proceed with the election. (For details, see DOCTRINES/BELIEFS).

About half a year after the book’s publication, on 16, 1990, the conclave was held in Kennett Bawden’s consignment store in the small town of Belvue, Kansas. The vast majority of the book recipients did not even consider coming, but a small group showed interest. In the end, only eleven did arrive. Seeing that the planned conclave would be very small, some tried to stall the process. (For counter-arguments from one who was present but chose not to attend the conclave, see Henry 1998).

Eventually, eight people assembled for the conclave, of which six were electors, the others being minors: David Bawden, his parents, Teresa Benns, and a married couple from Minnesota. Bawden was elected in the first ballot, accepting the office and taking Michael I as his papal name. Several U.S. newspapers reported about the unique event: that there was a group that claimed that the real pope was not in Rome but in small-town Kansas (see, e.g., The Manhattan Mercury,  July19, 1990; Kansas City Star, July 23, 1990; The Wichita Eagle, July 290, 199; Macon Telegraph and News, August 7, 1990; and The Miami Herald,  August 17, 1990).

With the papal election, the Holy See was moved from Rome and became the Vatican in Exile, located at the place where the pope lived. The adherents believed that papal jurisdiction was reinstated, but it did not imply that Bawden was ordained a priest. Still, he hoped that some true Catholic bishops who lived behind the iron curtain or in China had not taken part in Vatican II and never celebrated the sacraments according to the post-conciliar forms. He anticipated that one of them would ordain him (cf. The Miami Herald, August 17, 1990).

With his parents, Pope Michael moved from St. Marys in 1993 and lived for twenty years in Delia, a village close to Topeka, Kansas, to which the Vatican in Exile was transferred. From there, he remained in contact with his small group of adherents by letter and phone. His father died in 1995, and he lived alone with his mother.

In 2000, Pope Michael began a very active internet ministry, constructing several websites. Though the number of followers remained low, only a few dozen, he became more widely known through the websites. Though the vast majority of the visitors found the papal claim ridiculous, Pope Michael’s group of adherents became a more international group, including individuals from, e.g., Europe, Asia, and the Americas. (One of the few published texts about Pope Michael in the early 2000s is Frank 2004:217–24).

Still, more than fifteen years after his election, Pope Michael was not ordained though he actively sought an independent Catholic bishop who could provide him with the necessary apostolic succession. In 2006, the papal press secretary was informed that after submitting to the papal authority, an independent Catholic bishop of the Mathew Harris lineage would ordain Pope Michael a priest, consecrate him a bishop, and celebrate the papal coronation (Mascarenhas 2006). Still, the plans were abandoned at the last moment.

In 2007, Teresa Benns and the Hunt couple who took part in the 1990 conclave left Pope Michael’s jurisdiction, accusing him of heresy, and concluded that they had not been valid electors and that Bawden was never the true pope. Thus, the only people left from the 1990 conclave were the pope and his mother. In 2009, Teresa Benns, the Hunt couple, and others signed a petition demanding that David Bawden abandon his false papal claims (Benns 2007; Benns 2009 and Benns et al. 2009).

In 2007, three film students from the University of Notre Dame made a short film about Pope Michael (The South Bend Tribune, January 20, 2008). As a continuation of the project, one of the filmmakers, Adam Fairfield, envisioned a full-length feature movie. As a preparation, he visited Pope Michael at his home on various occasions in 2008 and 2009. The result was the hour-and-half-hour-long documentary Pope Michael, which made the Kansan pontiff known in broader circles. [Image at right] It had a respectful tone, letting the pontiff explain his claims, following his daily life and his teaching of a few seminarians (Pope Michael 2010).

Shortly after the documentary movie was released, in December 2011, Pope Michael was finally ordained and consecrated by independent Catholic bishop Robert Biarnesen after submitting to the pope’s jurisdiction. Biarnesen had been made a bishop only a month earlier and claimed his apostolic succession through the Duarte Costa and Mathew Harris lineages. (On Duarte Costa and his lineage, See Jarvis 2018b, cf. Boyle 2007b. For Biarnesen, See also [“Database of Independent Bishops”])

In 2013, David Bawden moved to Topeka, Kansas. He continued his online ministry on several websites (e.g., www.pope-michael.com, www.vaticaninexile.com, and www.pope-speaks.com). The material on the website included books and articles on the heresies taught by modern antipopes and the defense of his claim to the papacy, but also more general spiritual reflections. From 2016 onwards, the group published The Olive Tree, a monthly journal. [Image at right] Pope Michael also had a Facebook account with numerous followers and a Youtube channel, posting new videos regularly. The contents included answers to questions and brief lectures. Sermons and Masses were also live-streamed.

Pope Michael and his close associate Fr. Francis Dominic, who was ordained a priest in 2018. started St. Helen Catholic Mission – St. Helen Catholic Church in Topeka. Masses, sermons, and catechetical material from the church are spread through social media and a website (Saint Helen Catholic Mission website).

In early July 2022, Pope Michael suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and had to undergo emergency surgery.  At first, he seemed to recover but eventually passed away on August 2, 2022, aged sixty-two.  With his death, the Holy See became vacant, and his adherents began to plan a conclave to elect a successor.

In June 2023, Filipino Archbishop Rogelio del Rosario Martínez (b. 1970) announced that a conclave would be held in Vienna starting on July 25. There were four papabili: two bishops and two priests.  A candidate was elected in the first conclave session on July 25, but declined.  In the fourth session on July 29, a new candidate was elected, but he, too, declined.  Eventually, in the same session, Archbishop Martínez was selected and accepted the election.  He took Michael II as his papal name.  The result was publicly announced on August 9 (Lundberg 2023).

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

The case for the post-1958 vacant see, the non-validity of traditionalist clergy during the sede vacante, the necessity of re-establishing papal jurisdiction, and the validity of the 1990 conclave are the central themes in most texts authored by David Bawden/Pope Michael. The case was first outlined in the pre-conclave book, Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century? written mainly by Teresa Benns but with contributions by Bawden.  With various degrees of detail, Pope Michael presented the same ideas in numerous works (see Pope Michael 2003, 2005, 2006, 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2020), as well as in brief texts published on his websites.

The writings were based on interpretations of official church teachings in papal and conciliar documents and Canon Law. But they also build on a wide array of pre-1958 Catholic theologians. To some extent, he also includes end-time prophecies. Long quotations from sources make up a significant part of Pope Michael’s publications.

Among sedevacantists, there had been discussion as to whether Paul VI was not validly elected or if he lost office with the promulgation of the final documents of Vatican II in 1965 or earlier. Similarly, there was some discussion on whether John XXIII had lost the papal office or was not validly elected. There was a problem if a pope could be deposed, as only a pope could finally decide whether a pope had become a heretic. Another question was whether a person who was a heretic could be a validly elected pope.

To substantiate the claim that a heretic could not be validly elected a pope, some, Bawden included, referred to Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. In the bull, the pope decreed that if a bishop, cardinal, or pontiff before his elevation had “deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.” In such a case, “the election shall be null, void and worthless.” Thus, even if the elect accepted the office, he would not be the pope and would not receive papal jurisdiction or authority (Quoted in Pope Michael 2003).

Pope Michael argued that Cardinal Roncalli (John XXIII) was not a validly elected pope and that the sede vacante began with the death of Pius XII in 1958. He claimed that Roncalli had been a known heretic before his elevation, e.g., because he was a freemason who had advocated the liberty of religion and ecumenism. The cardinal was a false prophet as he summoned a council whose explicit goal was to bring the church up to date, though the Catholic Church could never change. Roncalli was an evil version of John the Baptist who prepared the way for the Antichrist–Cardinal Montini, i.e., Paul VI, e.g., by appointing large numbers of masonic cardinals that would ensure his election.

According to this line of argument, as Roncalli’s election was invalid, his elevation of new cardinals was null and void, as was the conclave held after his death. Put more radically: If Roncalli was the false prophet paving the way for the Antichrist, Paul VI was the Antichrist.  Drawing an analogy to the second beast in Rev. 13:11-17, Pope Michael claimed, “Montini transferred his power and that of Roncalli to the two horns; John Paul I and John Paul II; so that the beast appeared to be slain, but recovered and lived anew.” Needless to say, Pope Michael taught that Benedict XVI and Francis were antipopes, too.

Through Vatican II and the post-conciliar changes in the rites of sacraments, Montini being the Antichrist, “abolished the Continual Sacrifice” through his changes of substantial parts of the Order of the Mass. During this time, the Mass will cease temporarily and be supplied with “the abomination of desolation,” an expression from the Old Testament Book of Daniel. The effect was the creation of a new religion with new beliefs and rituals. In this new religion, the human being, not God, was venerated.

During the prolonged sede vacante beginning in 1958, there was no possibility of a valid Mass or administering most other sacraments as even the traditionalist clergy lacked jurisdiction, and their bishops acted as if they were popes. In fact, they were vitandi (excommunicated people that should be avoided) as they belonged to non-Catholic sects and were consecrated without necessary papal mandate. The proliferation of different traditionalist groups contradicted the belief in the unity of the Catholic church.

In the era of the Great Apostasy, Satan tries to destroy the church. Still, he will not be entirely successful as the Church is constituted by indefectibility, and St. Peter will have perpetual successors until the end. Though the vacancy was significantly prolonged, it cannot be perpetual. The question was who would elect a pope under current circumstances.  Due to the extinction of the College of the cardinals (the ordinary electors) they were not an option, as they belonged to a new religion.

Pope Michael argued that in such a state of emergency, clergy and laity or even a group solely made up of laity could elect a pope. He pointed to the principle of equity, often referred to by the Greek word epikeia. Applied to the prolonged sede vacante and the absence of normal electors, for a greater good (the salvation of souls) others, including laypeople, have the right and subsequent duty to elect a pope. In such circumstances, “the church could reluctantly supply the jurisdiction for this one act, for no other more qualified body exists to perform such an act.”

According to Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century? the potential electors should cease attending traditionalist services and not receive any sacraments during the time that remained until the conclave. Instead, they should devote themselves to prayer and studying the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Before the conclave, they should make a perfect act of contrition and a public abjuration of their heresies, pronounce the Holy See vacant, and confess the true Catholic faith according to Trent and the (First) Vatican Council. Only thus could they become qualified electors.

According to Bawden’s interpretation of Pius XII’s address to the Lay Apostolate World Conference on October 5, 1957, the criteria for being a papabile (someone who could be elected a pope) was that a person baptized male who has the use of reason and has not departed from the church through schism, heresy, or apostasy. Further, if the pope-elect was a layman, he must be willing to be ordained a priest as soon as possible.

Following these criteria, and according to Canon 219, a pontiff “legitimately elected, immediately upon accepting the election, obtains by divine law the full power of supreme jurisdiction.” It did not matter if the conclave was very small; David Bawden (Michael I) claimed that he was the true pope as he was elected “first in time” and thus “first in right.” Consequently, no other conclave should be held until after his death.

The “Papal Election Law of Pope Michael,” promulgated on August 26, 2008, provided several details about the procedure. It decreed that a successor should be selected within days of his death.

Our successor will be elected by a special, temporary Collegium, consisting of a Convenor and others, names which will not be disclosed to the general public, but which will be conveyed to those named as members. – – –

Immediately upon the death of the pope, the electors shall be contacted by phone and by all other modern means of communications as shall be found necessary by the convenor and the Collegium assembled shall proceed to gather for the election of a successor – – –

[T]he election shall commence at 9:00 am on the third day after the pope’s death, unless the electors have gathered earlier and decide to commence, although, if it is found necessary, the election may be delayed ten days (Quoted in Pope Michael 2011).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Though being elected the pope in 1990, Bawden remained a layman. This papal-layman status enabled him to perform duties regarded as jurisdictional and part of the teaching office, but he could not confer sacraments. Pope Michael could infallibly teach and interpret the Catholic doctrine and write and interpret canon law. He could preach, bless, and exorcise.  Further, the pope could absolve priests and bishops who abjured their heresies and submitted to his jurisdiction. He was also able excommunicate church members. Like all laypeople, he could baptize and witness marriages. As a layman, however, he could not say Mass nor administer the sacraments of Penance, Extreme Unction, Confirmation, or Ordination (Pope Michael 2011).

Already in his first official papal communication written just after the conclave, he wrote: “Sadly we report that non of the reverend clergy has seen fit to submit themselves to the Apostolic See and remain under the censures of suspension and excommunication for their various crimes.” (Quoted in The Miami Herald, August 17, 1990). Thus, he continued a layman.

In a 2009 article, Teresa Benns, who was one of the electors in 1990 and remained an adherent until 2007 when she denounced the papal claim, writes that as most followers lived very far away from the pope’s home, they rarely met him and mainly communicated by phone, letters, and, later, email. Pope Michael also distributed sermons and other religious texts to the followers. According to Benns, as for sacraments, nothing changed by the election: “We simply continued to pray at home” (Benns 2009).

It would take twenty-one years until Pope Michael was ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop. Though he had contacts with several possible consecrators, for decades, no bishop submitted to his jurisdiction. Eventually, in 2011, Pope Michael was ordained a priest, consecrated a bishop, and crowned pope. The consecrator was independent Catholic Bishop Robert Biarnesen, who had been consecrated just a month earlier by Bishop Alexander Swift Eagle Justice, archbishop of the Holy Orthodox Native American Catholic Archdiocese.

Through them, Pope Michael could claim apostolic succession from several independent Catholic sources, such as the Duarte Costa, Vilatte, and Harris Mathew lineages. Through them, he was related to bishops of, e.g., the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, the Mexican Catholic Apostolic Church, the Old Roman Catholic Church, the Tridentine Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Catholic Diocese of America. (See Pope Michael 2016d and for details on his lineages, cf. [“Database of Independent Bishops.”] On independent Catholicism and the centrality of the apostolic succession, See Plummer and Mabry 2006 and Byrne 2016),

With his ordination and consecration, Pope Michael thus could administer all sacraments of the Catholic Church, including daily Mass. To become part of the Catholic Church, now led by Pope Michael, a person had to make the Profession of Faith of Trent amended by the (First) Vatican Council but also make a special declaration of obedience and submission to the pontiff:

I accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff, that when he shall decide a matter it is forever closed. I accept the laws of the Church as the Church interprets them and reject any interpretation that contradicts the interpretation of the Church. I submit fully to Pope Michael I, Successor of St. Peter (Pope Michael 2005).

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP 

As the pontiff of the true Catholic Church, Pope Michael was the unquestionable leader from his election in 1990 to his death in 2022, reigning from his Vatican in Exile. The offices of the Holy See were located in his home in St. Marys/Belvue (1990–1993), Delia (1993–2013), and Topeka (2013–2022), all places within a thirty-mile distance from each other. [Image at right]

Pope Michael never had a large gathering of adherents. Though the numbers were oscillating, for most of his papacy, they could be counted by the dozens. Just after his election in 1990, he claimed some twenty or thirty adherents (The Des Moine Register, November 4, 1990). In the early 2000s, the number seems to have been equal, and in the documentary movie, recorded in 2008–2009, Pope said there were “some 30 solid ones.” A few years later, they were between 30 and 50, though he claimed that a larger group showed interest in joining (The Salina Journal, May 28, 2005 and The Kansas City Star, December 30, 2006, Pope Michael 2010; Interview with Pope Michael 2010)

After his ordination and consecration, a few priests submitted to Pope Michael. 2013, he had two priests under his jurisdiction and claimed three others soon. In 2018, Pope Michael ordained his first priest, Fr Francis Dominic, who was, and still is, very active in publishing spiritual reflections and sermons through social media and teaching catechism via a website. He is based at the St. Helen Catholic Church in Topeka and worked closely with Pope Michael until his death (www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1, www.facebook.com/PatronSaintHelen, www.sainthelencatholicmission.org, and www.traditionalcatechism.com).

In an interview recorded shortly before his death in 2022, Pope Michael claimed that the number of adherents had grown substantially in recent years. He had several clerics under his jurisdiction, including one archbishop in the Philippines, Rogelio Del Rosario Martinez Jr. (b. 1970), a married man who had earlier been consecrated in the Duarte Costa lineage. In 2020, Martinez submitted to Michael as the pope and reconciled. Apart from the bishop, seven priests had joined his jurisdiction, and he had tonsured one brother. In the interview, Pope Michael stated that the total membership was probably at least a hundred, including groups in Topeka, St. Louis, Phoenix, and the Philippines, but with individual members in other countries (Interview with Pope Michael 2022; on Bishop Martínez, see The Olive Tree, October 2022 issue.)

After Pope Michael’s death, the church was defined as sedevacantist but announced that there would, indeed, be a conclave. In “An Open Letter to Concerned Catholics,” published in the October 2022 issue of The Olive Tree, Brother Stephen explained that Father Francis Dominic is the Camerlengo. He “is the chief in conducting the normal business of the Church after the death of the Pope,” and he is “also charged with the preparation of a new papal election.”

In September 2022, Archbishop Martinez wrote, “we have to establish first a solid community of Christ’s faithful who are aware of what we are doing, and who support our cause. Then we can proceed to the conclave if it is already ripe. Yet we must set a definite time table for it” (The Olive Tree, September 2022 issue). A few months later, Martinez wrote: “Let us not be in a hurry in getting into conclave. Haste is the enemy of sanctity” (The Olive Tree, November 2022 issue).

It was not until June 2023 that the church announced the date and place of the conclave to elect a new pope.  The conclave was held in Vienna beginning on July 25.  In the fourth session on July 29, Archbishop Rogelio Martinez was elected and took Michael II as his papal name (Lundberg 2023).

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

The official Roman Catholic Church has never issued any official statement about the 1990 conclave and the pontificate of Michael. A week after the conclave, a representative of the diocese of Kansas City said, “The archdiocese has no comment at all. If someone wants to leave the church, that’s up to them” (The Kansas City Star, August 14, 1990).

Very few traditionalists, even those who were conclavists, regarded the 1990 conclave and the papal election as valid. It was impossible for a conclave made up of only laypeople to elect a pope, much less one that included women. Some tried to organize new conclaves, including both sedevacantist clergy and laypeople.

In the 1990s, two other conclaves were held. One took place in Assisi, Italy, in 1994, where a group of around twenty sedevacantist clergy and laypeople elected the South African priest Victor von Pentz (b. 1958) pope. He took Lius II as his papal name. Though he accepted the office, his public ministry based in Great Britain seems to have been minimal. While he has never made any public statement on the matter, he does not appear to have claimed the papacy for many years (Lundberg 2016a).

Another conclave was held in Montana in 1998 when the former Capuchin priest Lucian Pulvermacher (1918–2009) became pope. It is unknown how many electors took part, probably a few dozen, though most were not physically present but phoned in.  Pulvermacher took Pius XIII as his papal name but later changed it to Peter II. Like the other conclavist popes, he had a minimal number of adherents, and soon after the election, many left or were expelled. Still, Pius XIII had an active ministry for several years, publishing encyclicals and other official documents on a website (Lundberg 2016b).

In 2007, three original electors, including Teresa Benns, left Pope Michael’s jurisdiction, accusing him of heresy and claiming that the 1990 conclave and election were invalid and that David Bawden had never been the pope and should publicly renounce the office. Even in a state of emergency, she argued a conclave made up entirely of laypeople could not elect a pope, and women could never take part in a valid conclave (Benns 2009, 2012, 2013, 2018; Benns et al. 2009).

IMAGES

Image #1: Pope Michael (David Bawden).
Image #2: Pope Michael with his mother, Clara (“Tickie”).
Image #3: Cover of Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century?
Image #4: Pope Michael documentary announcement.
Image #5: The Olive Tree journal logo.
Image #6: Pope Michael with his mother and a seminarian at his home in Delia.

REFERENCES

Airiau, Paul. 2014. “Le pape comme scandale: Du sédevacantisme et d’autres antipapismes dans le catholicisme post Vatican-II”. In La participation des laïcs aux débats ecclésiaux après le concile Vatican II, edited by Jean-François Galinier-Pallerola et al.  Paris: Parole et Silence.

Airiau, Paul. 2009. “Des théologiens contre Vatican II, 1965–2005.” In Un nouvel âge de la théologie, 1965–1980, edited by Dominique Avon and Michel Fourcade. Paris: Editions Karthala.

Benns, Teresa. 2018. The Phantom Church in Rome: How neo-Modernists Corrupted the Church to Establish Antichrist’s Kingdom. St. Petersburg, Florida: BookLocker.com, Inc.,

Benns, Teresa. 2013. “How I Became Involved in a Papal Election and Supported a Traditionalist Antipope.” Accessed from www.betrayedcatholics.com on 15 February 2023.

Benns, Teresa. 2012. “I Was an Elector in a Conclavist Election Attempt.” Accessed from www.betrayedcatholics.com on 15 February 2023.

Benns, T[eresa] Stanfill.  2009. “No Apostolic Succession, No Pope: Laity Excluded from Election Process.” Accessed from www.betrayedcatholics.com on 15 February 2023.

Benns, Teresa Stanfill, et al.  2009.  “Petition: Pope Michael abandon your ‘papal’ claim.” Accessed from www.gopetion.com on 15 February 2023.

Boyle, Terrence J. 2007a. “The Ngo Dinh Thuc Consecrations for Various Groups.” Accessed from www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Thuc_Consecrations.html on 15 February 2023.

Boyle, Terrence J. 2007b.  “The Duarte Costa Consecrations.” Accessed from www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Costa_Consecrations.html on 15 Fegruary 2023.

Byrne, Julie.  2016.  The Other Catholics: Remaking America’s Largest Religion. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cekada, Anthony. 2008. “The Nine vs. Lefebvre: We Resist You to Your Face.” Accessed from www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf on 15 February 2023.

Cuneo, Michael W. 1997. The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

“Database of Independent Bishops.” Accessed from www.sites.google.com/site/gnostickos/ on 15 February 2023.

Frank, Thomas.  2004. What is the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Henry, Patrick.  1998.  “What do David Bawden and Teresa Benns teach?” Accessed from  www.jmjsite.com/what_do_benns_and_bawden_teach.pdf on 15 February 2023.

“He’s Pope For a Small Flock.” 1990. The Kansas City Star, July 23.

Hobson, David. 2008. “From the Depths of Obscurity to the Heights of Blasphemy: An  Overview of Saboteur David Bawden.” Accessed from www.todayscatholicworld.com/mar08tcw.htm on 15 February 2023.

Interview with Pope Michael.  2022.  Pontifacts pod. Accessed from https://pontifacts.podbean.com/e/interview-with-pope-michael-posthumous-release/ on 15 February 2023.

Interview with Pope Michael. 2010. Accessed from www.kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/12673 on 15 February 2023.

Jarvis, Edward.  2018a.  Sede Vacante: The Life and Legacy of Archbishop Thuc. Berkeley: Apocryphile Press.

Jarvis, Edward. 2018b.  God, Land & Freedom, The True Story of ICAB; The Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, Its History, Theology, Branches and Worldwide Offshoots. Berkeley: Apocryphile Press.

“Kansas Catholic Finds Being Pope Has its Problems/” 1990. Macon Telegraph and News, 7 August.

“Kansas ‘Pope’ Has Few Followers.” 2005. The Salina Journal, May 28.

“Kansas Worshipers Secede, Elects a Pope,” The Miami Herald, 17 August 1990.

Lundberg, Magnus. Forthcoming. Could the True Pope Please Stand Up: Twentieth and Twenty-First-Century Alternative Popes.

Lundberg, Magnus, 2023. ”Habemus Papam: Michael II.” Accessed from www.magnuslundberg.net/2023/08/10/habemus-papam-michael-ii on 16 August 2023.

Lundberg, Magnus. 2020. A Pope of Their Own: El Palmar de Troya and the Palmarian Church. Second Edition. Uppsala: Uppsala Studies in Church History. E-book.  Accessed from www.uu.diva portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1441386&dswid=-556

Lundberg, Magnus. 2016a. “Modern Alternative Popes 17: Linus II.” Accessed from www.magnuslundberg.net/2016/05/15/modern-alternative-popes-18-linus-ii/ on 15 February 2023.

Lundberg, Magnus. 2016b. “Modern Alternative Popes 18: Pius XIII.” Accessed from www.magnuslundberg.net/2016/05/15/modern-alternative-popes-18-pius-xiii/ on 15 February 2023.

Mascarenhas, Lúcio. 2006.  “Coronation of His Holiness Pope Michael I.”  Accessed from www.lucius-caesar.livejournal/393.html on 15 February 2023.

O’Malley, John W. 2008. What Happened at Vatican II.  Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Pacheco, Maria Martha. 2007. “Tradicionalismo católico postconciliar, el caso Sáenz y Arriaga,” Pp. 54-65 in Religion y sociedad en México durante el siglo XX, edted by María Martha Pacheco Hinojosa. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Estudios Históricos de las Revoluciones de México.

“Papal Pretender Twits the Real One.” 1990. Des Moines Register, November 4.

Plummer, John P. and John R. Mabry.  2006.  Who are the Independent Catholics?  An Introduction to the Independent and Old Catholic Churches. Berkeley: Aprocryphile Press.

Pope Michael.  2020. Will the Real Catholic Church Please Stand Up?: The World Groaned and Found Itself Modernist. Independently Published.

Pope Michael. 2016a.  Passion of the Mystical Body of Christ and Resurrection of the Catholic Church. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Pope Michael. 2016b. An Enemy Has Done This: The Infiltration of the Catholic Church.  CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Pope Michael. 2016c. The Comparative Number of the Saved and the Lost. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Pope Michael. 2016d. “Validity of The Ordination and Consecration of Pope Michael.” Accessed from www.pope-michael.com/old/pope-michael/summary-of-the-position/validity-of-the-ordination-and-consecration-of-pope-michael/ on 15 February 2023.

Pope Michael. 2013a.  54 years that changed the Catholic Church: 1958–2012. Christ the King Library.

Pope Michael. 2013b.  What Convinced me that We Needed to Elect a Pope.

Pope Michael. 2011. Upon this Rock: Doctrine of the Papacy.  CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Pope Michael. 2006.  Decision on Legitimacy of Orders Among the Traditionalists.

Pope Michael. 2005.  Truth is One. Accessed from www.pope-michael.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Truth-Is-One-Original.pdf on 15 February 2023

Pope Michael. 2003. Where is the Catholic Church?

Pope Michael Facebook page. 2023. Accessed from
https://www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1  on 15 February 2023.

Pope Michael website. n.d. Accessed from the www.pope-michael.com on 15 February 2023.

“’Pope’ Says He’s One and Only.” 1990. The Manhattan Mercury, July 19.

“Seminary Study Due.” 1977. The Daily Oklahoman, December 31.

St. Helen Catholic Church. 2023. Accessed from https://www.sainthelencatholicmission.org/ on 15 February 2023.

Sudlow, Brian. 2017. “The Frenchness of Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St Pius X: A New Reading,” French Cultural Studies 28:79–94.

“The Jayhawk Pope: Kansan’s Papacy Claim Highlights ND Film Fest.” 2008. The South Bend Tribune, January 2008.

The Olive Tree, 2016–2023. Accessed from www.vaticaninexile.com on 15 February 2023.

The Pope Speaks, 2012–2022. Accessed from www.pope-speaks.com and  www.vaticaninexile.com/the_pope_speaks.php on 15 February 2023.

Tissier de Mallerais, Bernard. 2002. Marcel Lefebvre: une vie. Paris: Clovis.

Traditional Catechism website. 2023. Accessed from www.traditionalcatechism.com on 15 February 2023.

Vatican in Exile website. 2023. Accessed from the www.vaticaninexile.com on 15 February 2023.

RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY

Publication Date:
19 February 2023
Update:
15 August 2023

 

Share

Augusta E. Stetson

AUGUSTA E. STETSON TIMELINE

1842 (day and month unknown):  Augusta Emma Simmons was born to Peabody Simmons and Salome Sprague in Waldoboro, Maine.

1866 (August 14):  Augusta Simmons married Captain Frederick J. Stetson, a mariner.

1866–1870:  The Stetsons sailed around the world, including lengthy stops in such places as Bombay, India.

1870:  Capt. Stetson’s health broken, the couple moved to Damariscotta, Maine.

1873:  The Stetsons moved in with Augusta’s parents in Somerville, Massachusetts.

1875:  Mary Baker Eddy published Science and Health.

1879 (June):  Eddy organized the Church of Christ (Scientist) in Lynn, Massachusetts. She moved services to Boston later that year.

1882:  Augusta E. Stetson enrolled in Boston’s Blish School of Oratory.

1884 (Spring):  Stetson heard Eddy lecture in Charlestown, Massachusetts.

1884 (November):  At Eddy’s invitation, Stetson took a two-week class on Christian Science at Eddy’s Massachusetts Metaphysical College.

1884–1885:  After she became a Christian Science practitioner (healer) in Boston, Stetson spent several weeks in Skowhegan, Maine and Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, successfully treating sick patients.

1885–1886:  Eddy asked Stetson to preach for her on Sundays in Hawthorne Hall, Boston.

1886 (February):  Stetson took a Normal class with Eddy to become a teacher of Christian Science.

1886 (November):  Eddy sent Stetson to New York City to help introduce Christian Science.

1887 (November 29):  Stetson organized what became First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York (hereafter known as First Church).

1890 (October 21):  Stetson was ordained as pastor of her church.

1891 (July 24):  Stetson opened the New York Christian Science Institute, where she taught classes on Christian Science.

1891 (October):  After friction with Stetson, Eddy student Laura Lathrop and others withdrew from Stetson’s church to organize what became Second Church of Christ, Scientist, New York.

1892:  Eddy established The Mother Church in Boston.

1894 (December 30):  Eddy abolished pastors and ordained the Bible and Science and Health as the church pastors. Stetson became First Reader of her church in New York.

1895:  Eddy published her constantly revised Church Manual.

1896 (September 27):  Stetson dedicated the first edifice of her church, the 1,000-seat former Episcopal Church of All Souls, located on West 48th Street. For the previous nine years, Stetson’s congregation had worshipped in rented quarters, beginning with a room over a store.

1901 (July 6):  Frederick Stetson, still an invalid, died in New York.

1903 (November 29):  Stetson opened and dedicated, free of debt, the $1,150,000, 2,200-seat edifice of First Church on New York’s Central Park West.

1908 (November 30):  The executive board of Stetson’s church voted to purchase a large lot on Riverside Drive for an 8,000-seat branch of her church, an action that became a violation of Eddy’s Church Manual in 1909.

1909 (July 24):  Eddy asked the governing Christian Science Board of Directors of The Mother Church to investigate Stetson. Eddy subsequently asked the Directors to let Stetson’s church handle the case.

1909 (November 4):  In a lengthy report, Stetson’s church completely exonerated her of Mother Church charges that included undue control over her students, failure to recognize other branch churches as legitimate, deification of Eddy, and violations of the Church Manual.

1909 (November 18):  The Mother Church excommunicated Stetson; she soon resigned from First Church, New York.

1913:  Stetson published Reminiscences, Sermons, and Correspondence.

1914:  Stetson published Vital Issues in Christian Science.

1918:  Stetson founded the New York Oratorio Society of the New York City Christian Science Institute, consisting of her students.

1923:  Stetson published Letters and Excerpts from Letters, 1889–1909, from Mary Baker Eddy . . . to Augusta E. Stetson.

1925:  Stetson published Sermons Which Spiritually Interpret the Scriptures and Other Writings on Christian Science.

1926:  Stetson launched radio station WHAP, which featured nativist programming and concerts by the Oratorio Society.

1928 (October 12):  Augusta E. Stetson died in Rochester, New York at the age of eighty-six.

2004:  Stetson’s church dissolved itself, merged with Second Church, Lathrop’s former church, to become a newly constituted First Church. The original church building was sold for $15,000,000.

BIOGRAPHY

Augusta E. Stetson [Image at right] was an irrepressible, multi-faceted religious leader who broke new ground for women, garnered deep affection from hundreds of followers, and dealt harshly with competitors. Some scholars have termed her “brilliant, volatile,” a “complicated charismatic character,” and a latter-day apostle, while others have painted her as a “heretic, power grabber, [and] worshipper of Mammon” (cited in Swensen 2008:76). Almost a century after her death, it is time to examine her role as a leader in Christian Science with greater objectivity.          

Augusta Emma Simmons was born to Peabody Simmons and Salome Sprague in Waldoboro, Maine in 1842 (day and month unknown). She had a “complete education for her day,” including the local Lincoln Academy, the equivalent of a high school (Cunningham 1994:15). Recognizing her musical ability, her father arranged for her to become the organist of the local Methodist church when she was fourteen. When she was twenty-two, she married Captain Frederick J. Stetson, a middle-aged ship broker, and lived with him in such places as England, India, and Burma. After Frederick’s health deteriorated in 1870, the couple moved to Damariscotta, Maine. Three years later they moved in with Augusta’s parents in Somerville, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston. In 1882, she enrolled in the Blish School of Oratory in Boston to hone her public speaking skills. Her plan was that she would give public lectures to earn money to support herself and her husband, who had become an invalid (Cunningham 1994:13–26).

While in Boston, Stetson learned of Christian Science, a “new Christian identity” (Voorhees 2021:8) recently founded by Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910), to “commemorate the word and works of our Master [Jesus], which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Eddy 1936:17). Four years after publishing her textbook, Science and Health (1875), Eddy had founded the Church of Christ (Scientist) in Lynn, Massachusetts with twenty-six followers, moving her services to Boston later that same year (Swensen 2018:92–93). After disbanding her first unruly Boston church in 1889, Eddy founded the centralized Mother Church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, three years later. Proclaiming that both men and women were perfect children of a perfect God, Eddy affirmed, “We have not as much authority in science, for calling God masculine as feminine, the latter being the last, therefore the highest idea given of Him” (Eddy 1875:238; Hicks 2004:47). This was a striking idea, but it was not entirely new. According to historian of religion Elaine Pagels, the Holy Spirit was originally conceptualized as a “feminine spirit” or the “Motherly” side of the divinity (Pagels 2006:8). Eddy built her healing faith around the concept of Father–Mother God.

When Stetson first heard Eddy lecture in Charlestown, Massachusetts in 1884, she knew she had found her niche. As Stetson later described her reaction to Eddy’s preaching: “I there caught a glimpse of the power of the Christ-mind, and its application to sin and sickness, the power which Jesus utilized, and which he taught to his disciples” (Stetson 1913/1917:852). According to scholar of religion Rosemary R. Hicks, Eddy encouraged women to “resume the mantle of healing that institutional medicine had usurped and to take leadership positions in ministry and education” (Hicks 2004:58). As scholar of religion Sarah Gardner Cunningham observes about Augusta E. Stetson, “Christian Science offered a coterie of discerning women of some social refinement, an opportunity for a kind of status and economic independence as a Christian Science practitioner [healer] and teacher, and spiritual treatment for Frederick and for herself” (Cunningham 1994:27). Because of her forceful personality, Stetson quickly became known as “Fighting Gus” (Strickler 1909:175).

When Eddy asked Stetson to go to help introduce the faith to New York City in 1886, she initially hesitated to leave familiar surroundings and venture into a large and strange city. Yet Stetson took the plunge and journeyed to the Empire City. “As here and there an individual member of a family embraced the healing truth,” she recalled, “households were gradually drawn into the fellowship of the new joy of spiritual dominion” (Stetson 1914/1917:105). Largely spearheaded by newly liberated women, Christian Science began its rapid ascent primarily because of healings of physical ailments. Proving herself an effective healer who often brought about instantaneous cures, Stetson exulted to Eddy, “The healing is astounding” (Stetson 1894).

Stetson soon began to attract attention. In 1894, one local journalist reported that she maintained that “woman is better fitted than man to fill the pulpit, because she expresses the highest order of humanity” (Unattributed clipping 1894). After renting space for services for almost ten years, in 1896 Stetson purchased the 1,000-seat building of a former Episcopal Church on West 48th Street. In an article entitled “Christian Science Churches Thronged,” one local reporter described a Sunday service at Stetson’s church: “Beautiful women richly gowned, superb in beautiful coloring, swept up and down the aisles, stopping here and there chatting in groups, in twos and threes, and well[-]groomed men taking their part in what was more like a reception at a Fifth Avenue mansion than the ending of a religious service” (quoted in Cunningham 1994:82). Biographer Gillian Gill writes that Stetson had “managed to project the image of a stylish, cultured woman that appealed to New York’s nouveau riche population” (Gill 1998:534). Scholar of Christian Science Stephen Gottschalk observes that Stetson was a “precursor of a tendency among some Christian Scientists to live out an uneasy compromise between the rhetoric of spirituality and the reality of a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—materialism” (Gottschalk 2006:379).

All members of Stetson’s loyal inner circle were grateful for the healings they experienced through her work. One of her first patients was Edwin F. Hatfield, a former railroad executive and scion of distinguished Presbyterian clerics in New York, who was “quickly healed of nervous prostration, which physicians had failed to relieve” (Stetson 1913/1917:21). Hatfield became the chairman of the board of Stetson’s church for almost twenty years. George F. DeLano, a successful New York lawyer, rejoiced that he had “discovered the Principle of healing that had brought my wife and myself from a state of chronic invalidism to perfect health” (First Church, New York Trustees Minutes 1903). Both William Taylor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, who owned several stores and had large mining interests, and his wife had been healed by Stetson and were her fervent followers since about 1895. “Both had been invalids. . . . Both are perfectly well now and have been all this time. They trust everything absolutely to Principle, their children, health and business” (Alexander 1923–1939, 1:108). Stetson drew into her fold many affluent people, as well as those of more limited means (Swensen 2008:84; Swensen 2010:12-14; Johnston 1907:161).

Attendance at Stetson’s church skyrocketed, necessitating larger quarters. After four years of planning and cutting no corners with funds freely contributed by her church members, Stetson’s $1,150,000 majestic Beaux Arts edifice on Central Park West at 96th Street, [Image at right] designed by the renowned architectural firm of Carrere and Hastings, was completed late in 1903. Built of New Hampshire granite (from Eddy’s home state) with its steeple visible across Central Park, the structure boasted walnut pews capable of accommodating 2,200 worshippers, marble floors, and a large stained-glass window by the celebrated American artist John La Farge (see Swensen 2008:84). Just before the opening and dedication, Stetson wrote to Eddy, “We are ready at last to dedicate the church edifice which our love and gratitude have erected as a tribute to you. It is not necessary for me to tell you what this means to me—you know it all—the long and perilous passage, the fears and foes within and without, and the opposition of envy and all evil” (Stetson 1913/1917:170).

There were concerns about Stetson’s embrace of wealth, fashion, and materialism. Annie Dodge, a member of Stetson’s church, reported to Eddy, “Everything here seems to be frills and frothiness” (Dodge 1901). A few months before her church building was completed, Eddy warned Stetson:

Your material church is another danger in your path. It occupies too much of your attention it savors of the goddess of the Ephesians, the great Diana. O turn ye to one God. . . . I had hoped the interval from Readership would give you a great growth in healing and this is needed more than all else on earth (Eddy 1903, underline in original).

After Eddy suggested three-year terms for branch church Readers in 1902, Stetson was slow to accept this new Church Manual bylaw. In 1905, Eddy again urged, “What I need for help in my life-labor more than all else on earth is a—healer such as I were when practising. I beg and pray that you become that” (Eddy 1905).

By 1908, attendance was so great at Stetson’s church that there were 200 to 300 people standing during the Sunday morning service. Late that year the church trustees voted to purchase a large lot on Riverside Drive to build an 8,000-seat branch church there (Peel 1977:334), which flouted Eddy’s rule that only The Mother Church in Boston could have branch churches (Eddy 1936:71). Annie Dodge warned Eddy that Stetson and “her ‘dupes’ might start a Church . . . which to all appearances would be a branch of the Mother Church in Boston, but in reality would be only a branch (or Annex) of First Church here” (Dodge 1909, underline in original). Thus, Stetson was viewed as challenging Eddy and The Mother Church, although Stetson always claimed she was following Eddy.

In the summer of 1909, at Eddy’s request, the governing Board of Directors of The Mother Church (composed of five former successful businessmen) began an investigation of Stetson and her leadership and institutions. Charges included domination of her students, that she labelled all other branch churches, at least in New York City, as illegitimate, that she deified Eddy, and that she violated the Church Manual. On November 18, 1909, after Stetson and sixteen of her practitioners were examined by the Directors in Boston, Stetson was excommunicated from The Mother Church. Four days later she resigned from First Church, New York.

After her ouster, Stetson actively continued her work, maintaining her loyalty to Eddy, claiming that Eddy had chosen her to carry on true Christian Science, and indefatigably defending herself. In 1913, she published Reminiscences, Sermons, and Correspondence Proving Adherence to the Principle of Christian Science as Taught by Mary Baker Eddy, which included her autobiography, sermons, articles, and letters to and from students. As she wrote to a friend in the year the volume was published:

I must, as an [sic] historian, give to the world a record of the events which occurred when the separation came, between the Christian Scientists who composed the material organization, and the advanced Christian Scientists who had risen to the spiritual interpretation of the text-book of Christian Science, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, and our revered Leader’s other writings (Stetson 1913/1917:1176).

Stetson’s publication in the following year of Vital Issues in Christian Science was intended to counter “continued denunciation of my teaching by the constituted authorities of the material organization [The Mother Church]” (Stetson 1914/1917:362). This volume contained The Mother Church charges against her and excerpts of testimony at the Directors’ hearings, with her attempted refutations of all accusations. In 1923 she published Letters and Excerpts from Letters, 1889–1909, from Mary Baker Eddy . . . to Augusta E. Stetson, which contained only Eddy’s positive comments and omitted all of Eddy’s efforts to counsel and correct her student. The next year, Stetson published Sermons Which Spiritually Interpret the Scriptures and Other Writings on Christian Science, the “last of Stetson’s scrap-book type collections” (Paulson, Mathis, Bargmann 2021:200).

Of Stetson’s estimated 800 students, about half remained staunchly loyal to her after her ties to the organized Christian Science movement were severed. As Arnold Blome, Stetson’s student, wrote to her, “I am sure you know, but I had not fully realized, what grateful, loving, generous students you have until I began to gather the sheaves” (Blome 1918). Her students reverently addressed her as “Teacher.” Stetson’s student Amy R. Lewis affirmed, “You are a Rock in the Temple of Love” (Lewis 1923). Some Christian Science writers, including Robert Peel, have failed to note the devotion that Stetson’s students felt toward her. In 1920, when New York’s First Church tried and failed to excommunicate Stetson loyalists, the struggle was front-page news (New York Herald 1920:1).

In addition to her many administrative accomplishments, Stetson was a published poet and song writer. In 1918 she founded the 300-member New York Oratorio Society of the New York City Christian Science Institute, largely consisting of her students, who sang recognized and new sacred works and her songs, including General Anthems: Light the Torch and Our America: National Anthem. As she remarked to an interviewer from Musical America, “Only those who undertake the work of community singing under the inspiration of a divine purpose will succeed in the hearts of the people” (Stanley 1917:11). During the 1920s, Stetson’s radio station, WHAP, broadcast nativist and Ku Klux Klan political commentary and concerts by the Oratorio Society, sometimes accompanied by members of the New York Philharmonic Society. Stetson’s commitment to oratorios stood in contrast to the organized Christian Science movement, since Eddy had abolished choirs in 1898 at The Mother Church and at branches about two years later.

Although Stetson asserted that she would live forever, she passed away on October 12, 1928 in Rochester, New York at the age of eighty-six. In 2004, with its attendance down to a handful, First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York disbanded, sold its Beaux Arts edifice for $15,000,000, and merged with Second Church to form a new First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York.

According to Cunningham, “Stetson never accepted the changed corporate character of the church. She refused to abandon the intimate, interpersonal, nineteenth-century vocabulary and feminine frame of reference that characterized her original understanding” (1994:9). For former Mother Church Director and Eddy biographer John V. Dittemore (1876-1937), Stetson “lacked her leader’s capacity of growth. She always remained at the standpoint of 1884” (Bates and Dittemore 1932:442). Stetson’s highly successful effort to build up her church and secure the love and loyalty of hundreds of her pupils was a notable accomplishment, but it was hobbled by her intractability, which led directly to her downfall at the hands of five male Directors of The Mother Church.

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES

Stetson wrote, “I am like a mathematician who stands before the blackboard working out a mathematical conclusion. The audience is the world, interested only in the solution” (1914:646). From the time Stetson arrived in New York City in 1886, she taught students about Christian Science. After the founding of the New York Christian Science Institute in 1891, she organized her teaching more methodically and, until forbidden by Eddy, tried to teach classes in other cities. Following Eddy’s Church Manual, first published in 1895, Stetson taught one class of up to thirty-three students annually, called “Class Instruction.” (In 1899, Eddy decreased the number of students per annual class to thirty.) Here is how Stetson’s devoted student Stella Hadden Alexander described her 1901 class:

It is a wonderful class, 13 men, all middle aged, scholarly or business men, many of them deep thinkers, as you can see from the discussions in class, their answers to Mrs. Stetson’s questions, and their questions to her (Alexander 1923–1939, 1:102).

Alexander exulted to her mother that she had found a “new and beautiful view of life” (Alexander 1923–1939, 1:96). Soon afterward she wrote to her parents, “Oh! How great Christian Science is! How it unites people! The church seems like one great family” (Alexander 1923–1939, 1:104). Writing shortly after Stetson’s passing, Lutheran clergyman and historian Altman K. Swihart reported that “Mrs. Stetson’s loyal students held her in affectionate, reverential esteem” (Swihart 1931:70).

As Stetson claimed, “In my teaching and practice I am closely following the textbook of Christian Science [Science and Health], as I have done for twenty-five years” (Stetson 1913/1917:643). In 1909, Stetson wrote to Eddy,

I have taught my students to look straight at and through the brazen serpent of false personality, and to behold the immortal idea, man, where the mortal seems to be. Malicious animal magnetism still persists in its efforts, by its indiscriminate denunciation of personality in general, to slay the spiritual idea, Christian Science, to which you have given birth (Stetson 1913/1917:227).

Stetson’s teaching of obstetrics was unusual, and in some ways, protofeminist, but it strayed beyond Eddy’s boundaries. “To attend properly the birth of the new child, or divine idea,” Eddy wrote, “you should detach thought from its material conceptions, that the birth will be natural and safe” (Eddy 1934:463). The typed text of Stetson’s “Obstetrics” lesson consists of class notes taken by a student. “There is but one Mother [God],” Stetson declared, “and Her law is the only law of harmony, peace, purity, immortality” (Stetson n.d.:2). Speaking metaphysically, she denied the existence of male and female genitalia, maintaining that there was no sex, fertilized egg, race, gender, or sexual intercourse (Stetson n.d.:12). As Stetson taught, “There is no matter—no male or female—no material conception—no foetal growth—no material man—no male or female baby—no baby to lose—no belief of baby” (Stetson n.d.:12; see also Bates and Dittemore 1932:365).

For Stetson, Eddy was the female Christ or “Messiah,” a characterization that Eddy repeatedly rejected. “But darling,” Eddy warned, “you injure the cause and disobey me in thinking that I am Christ or saying such a thing” (Eddy 1900b; Thomas 1994:274). Stetson’s students, such as Arnold Blome, continued to assert that Jesus epitomized the “fatherhood of God,” while Eddy represented the “motherhood of God” (Blome 1918). One year before she passed, Stetson reaffirmed, “To me Mrs. Eddy is the motherhood of God as Jesus was the fatherhood. God is both father and mother” (New York Times 1927:10).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

The Christian Science movement was built on healing. A remarkably successful healer, this portion of Stetson’s work was increasingly sidelined by her close attention to her church and students. Nevertheless, healing was an important aspect of Stetson’s New York City church. The healing activities were mentioned in a copy of her extemporaneous address to her church on Thanksgiving Day 1908 that she sent to Eddy. During this address, Stetson mentioned the “practitioners [in her church] who are healing the sick and awaking the sinner, and church members whose service of time and money has been a work of love” (Stetson 1913/1917:156). More than 45,000 people a year visited the Christian Science Reading Room located in the First Church, New York building; of 4,523 cases of illness treated by the twenty-five practitioners on duty, over 3,000 were “healed or permanently benefitted” (Strickler 1909:257; First Church, New York 1909b).

Despite her other interests, Stetson continued to be an exceptional healer. “I am moved to write you,” she reported in a letter to Eddy in 1904, “in regard to a case to which I was recently called, that, during two years, had been diagnosed by thirteen physicians, and treated as malignant cancer.” Stetson recounted:

The healing went on, and the cancer passed off gradually day by day as painlessly and as freely as if removed by a surgeon’s knife, until in two weeks there was no evidence of the disease except the after effects” (Stetson 1913/1917:173).

There were two or three relapses (the patient was allegedly once “pulseless” for sixteen hours), but Stetson claimed that the healing was complete (Stetson 1913/1917:175).

Stetson encouraged social and cultural events among her students, including recitals and dramatic productions, which were sidelined by other Christian Science teachers. Stetson informed Eddy that she did not have time to attend cultural events, but her church was a beehive of activities, which were reduced when Eddy frequently limited the bustle of branch churches through her evolving Church Manual. Such restrictions included evicting the 25 practitioners who had small offices on an upper floor of Stetson’s church (Eddy 1936:74). The approximately 75 linear feet of records of First Church, New York at the Mary Baker Eddy Library in Boston demonstrate the many cultural activities and social events that were associated with Stetson and her church. These records might offer branch churches today at least a few ideas about how to fill their empty church auditoriums (see Baxter 2004:110).

Sunday services and Wednesday testimony meetings at Stetson’s church were moving and dramatic. [Image at right] In 1906, she wrote to Eddy:

How often during the church services I wish you could see the great congregation, and hear the testimonies of the people, of wonderful deliverance from sin, sickness, sorrow, and death, and their appreciation of your great work, and of your book, Science and Health; and could hear your words in your hymns ring out from hundreds of voices, which fill the lofty dome until the music seems to blend with the unseen angel choir and the great organ of eternity swells its diapason in Te Deums of praise to God for your ministry to mankind (Stetson 1913/1917:181).

Mary Pinney, a Stetson student who commanded the 66-rank, four-manual Hutchings–Votey organ, was probably the only female organist at a large church in New York City. The congregation would rise as Stetson entered the sanctuary, a practice that ran counter to Eddy’s disdain of “personality.”

Since Stetson claimed that her branch church was paramount in New York City, she held it aloof from other Christian Science branch churches in the city, even refusing to participate in a joint Christian Science Reading Room. According to Stetson, “branch churches originating in qualities other than unity and love cannot properly be regarded in the spiritual sense as legitimate Christian Science churches.” That is, Stetson viewed all other branch churches in New York City as “schismatic” (Stetson 1914/1917:307).

LEADERSHIP

According to Swihart, Stetson sought personal fealty from her followers, whereas Eddy required obedience through her Church Manual. In common with Eddy, Stetson chose loyal men to run her church, which “became a marvel of efficiency and of attachment to the dominating figure who controlled all its activities” (Swihart 1931:57). Stetson’s control of her church exasperated Eddy. Many of the bylaws in Eddy’s evolving Church Manual, including her decision to abolish pastors and establish lay readers, were directed partly at Stetson. In a Christian Science congregation, two Readers alternately read passages from the Bible and Science Health, these texts being designated the pastors of the Church of Christ, Scientist in the Church Manual (see Peel 1977:32-33; Gottschalk 2006:226-228). Eddy later limited the terms of Readers to three years, another move aimed at curtailing Stetson’s authority in her church. Despite these strictures, Stetson repeatedly claimed a special relationship with Eddy, prompting the latter to write to her, “Do not claim that you are my chosen one for you are not” (Eddy 1893b). Yet, as Stetson later wrote to Eddy, “You and I seem to be held up to the world together but all the fiery darts of the enemy fail to separate us” (Stetson 1897).

One contemporary magazine characterized Stetson as possessing “unbreakable reserve power” (Johnston 1907:159). The methods Stetson employed, however, produced strong ripples of discontent among Eddy’s adherents in Stetson’s New York City flock. “I took Mrs. Lathrop from your church to rescue her from oppression,” Eddy wrote to Stetson. “You would not allow her to speak in your meetings nor allow your students to attend hers on penalty of leaving your church” (Eddy 1895). As Eddy had previously written to her adopted son, “The misunderstanding carried out between Mrs. Stetson and me is a sure sign of . . . the disruption of all our expectations” (Eddy 1893a, underline in original). Trying to rein in her headstrong yet talented student, Eddy was extraordinarily patient, often calling her “darling” in letters and repeatedly asking her to purchase bonnets and dresses for her in New York City (Peel 1971:177; Peel 1977:331; Gottschalk 2006:368–71).

Stetson’s influence in the Christian Science movement extended far beyond New York City. Three branch churches were essentially branches of First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City through close connection between Stetson and her students: Albany, New York; Wilmington, North Carolina; and Cranford, New Jersey (Strickler 1909:208). Her students were also very active in places such as Atlanta, Georgia; Butte, Montana; and, until 1898, Portland, Oregon. Despite Eddy’s repeated denials, Stetson believed that she would succeed Eddy as leader of the denomination (Peel 1977:332; Gottschalk 2006:371).

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Eddy once observed to Stetson, “You have always been the most troublesome student that I call loyal. . .” (Eddy 1897a). Stetson’s alleged domination of members of her congregation caused the defection from her orbit of her close follower and former assistant pastor Carol Norton in 1897. Eddy warned Stetson that, if she did not cease her “mad ambition,” the “blow will at length fall and ‘the stone that you reject will grind you to powder’” (Eddy 1897b). At the very time Stetson’s imposing church edifice opened in 1903, one disaffected member remarked, “Here you are confronted by a sort of mental Mafia and mental assassination” (New York Times 1903:5). Social historian Robert David Thomas notes Stetson’s “divisiveness” (Thomas 1994:268), while Gill describes Stetson as a “troublesome healer” (Gill 1998:537). Those who opposed Stetson’s wishes and exhibited “refractory” behavior were ostracized or even excommunicated from her church, including the future First Reader of The Mother Church, William D. McCrackan (1864–1923), who broke with Stetson in 1906 (Swensen 2010:7).

After reports of the proposed branch church on Riverside Drive appeared in the press early in July 1909, Stetson sent to Eddy a composite letter, consisting of brief, laudatory statements about her by her students. In this letter, Arnold Blome exclaimed to Stetson, “Your perfect life, [is] fast approaching the perfect idea of Love,” while Kate Y. Remer exulted, “You have taken us back into the real garden of Eden” (Stetson 1909:2). Shaken by the composite letter, Eddy asked the Mother Church Directors to start an investigation of Stetson, call her to Boston for questioning, and threaten expulsion from the church if she did not desist from her headstrong views and practices (Peel 1977:336–43; Gottschalk 2006:371–79; Bates and Dittemore 1932:432–33). Although Eddy tried to reason with Stetson, she asked Archibald McLellan, editor of the Christian Science periodicals and a Director, to write a “clear strong statement of The Mother Church’s rebuke of Augusta E. Stetson’s stuff published in the name of Christian Science” (Eddy 1909a).

Virgil O. Strickler (1863-1921), First Reader of Stetson’s church and a former Omaha attorney and Populist Party leader, kept a diary after Stetson invited him to her two-hour daily meetings with her inner circle of practitioners in January 1909. According to Strickler, Stetson claimed that the other New York City Christian Science churches were not legitimate, that these “organizations had to die” (Strickler 1909:54), and warned that Laura Lathrop (1845–1922) should stop fighting her. “If you [Lathrop] are not right you must go out, and the quicker you go out the better, and the more you suffer the better” (Strickler 1909:187, underline in original). Stetson threatened that “If Archibald Mclelland [sic] does not look out he will go six feet under the ground” (Strickler 1909:189), and declared that, since “the Mother Church is in in the hands of the devil,” it must wither and die (Strickler 1909:208–09). After Stetson returned from meeting with the Directors, Strickler described her as “almost hysterical,” claiming that “it was not her that took them [Directors/Lathrop] up; that it was the human that said those things and that the human was not her real self” (Strickler 1909:277). Stetson was claiming that her perfect self, in God’s image (see Gen. 1:27), did not utter those threats. Unaware of these comments, in early August Eddy instructed the Directors to let First Church, New York handle the matter of Stetson’s church leadership, in accordance with the Church Manual.

When Strickler showed his diary to the Mother Church Directors on August 30, 1909, they were “simply overjoyed and speechless that at last Mrs. Eddy and themselves were to have the truth about the hidden mysteries of First Church of New York City” (Strickler 1909:306). When the Directors reported the contents of Strickler’s diary to Eddy, she asked them to deal with Stetson’s “impious conduct” (Eddy 1909c). Now thoroughly exasperated with Stetson, Eddy warned her that she was “dark in your perception of me and my thoughts” (Eddy 1909b). During the Directors’ questioning of sixteen of Stetson’s practitioners, it was revealed that Stetson and some of her students had lied under oath to ensure that First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City received $60,000 in the case involving the contested will of Helen C. Brush in 1901 (Gill 1998:513). Almost all of the sixteen practitioners remained loyal to Stetson and followed her out of the organized Christian Science movement. As Eddy wrote to the Directors, “if it can be done safely, drop Mrs. Stetson’s connection with the Mother Church. Let no one know what I have written to you on this subject” (Eddy 1909d).

Yet Stetson, who lived in a townhouse adjacent to the church edifice she had built, [Image at right] remained influential in her congregation. At a tumultuous meeting of First Church, New York City on November 4, 1909, a report of over 1,000 pages, written by members of Stetson’s inner circle and including detailed interviews with many church members, found her innocent of all charges (see First Church, New York 1909a). As Strickler recorded the scene at the meeting, “The report precipitated a riot. For six hours people yelled and shouted and otherwise behaved themselves like so many wild indians [sic]” (Strickler 1909:327). Eddy condemned the “disgraceful revolt in Stetson’s Church. . . . Mrs. Stetson . . . will awake to the thunders of Sinai. . .” (Eddy 1909e). On November 18, 1909, after six intense hours of cross-examination by the Directors spread over three days, Stetson was excommunicated from The Mother Church. Four days later she resigned as a member of the church she had founded and guided for twenty-three years. In January 1910 at a contentious annual meeting of First Church, New York, urged on by Eddy, members decisively defeated Stetson’s slate of officers (Bates and Dittemore 1932:439-42). Stetson continued to live in her townhouse and regularly meet with her loyal students until her passing in 1928.

SIGNIFICANCE TO THE STUDY OF WOMEN IN RELIGIONS

Augusta E. Stetson was one of Mary Baker Eddy’s “newly empowered women” who introduced Christian Science and its gospel of healing to the public, but she became an obstacle to Eddy’s plan to subjugate “‘personality’ and place her movement under successful men acceptable to patriarchal culture” (Swensen 2008:75, 76). [Image at right] Since Stetson often stated that she was brave and constantly had to defend her church, Eddy once responded with exasperation, “You are brave but you are a woman in the eyes of men. . .” (Eddy 1900a). That is, Eddy was concerned that Stetson did not seem to realize or care that she was operating without self-restraint in a patriarchal culture and that opposition was increasing against her from both men and women. Eddy was well aware of the social opposition that she and Christian Science faced (Peel 1977:194–97, 200–02, 229–33; Gottschalk 2006:17–20, 46-47, 260–82; Bates and Dittemore 1932:372, 378, 384, 403–18). Even the New York Times referred to Eddy as the “High Priestess” of a “pestilent cult,” and charged that the “Christian Science type” was a “mushy-brained” and “imperious female” (New York Times 1904, quoted in Swensen 2008:83)

Yet Stetson continued to reject patriarchal dominance. “Down through the line of commutual thought,” she reasoned, “women have responded to the divine interpretation and are demanding emancipation from man-made laws and mental slavery” (Stetson 1913/1917:715). As she wrote in a letter to the press:

The story as told by Luke shows that Jesus was visible to the women, but that, although Peter and other men went to the sepulchre, and found that the material body of their Master was not there, they failed to recognize the spiritual man—“Him they saw not” (Stetson 1913/1917:955).

Stetson was even more explicit about the scriptural role of women: “It was the woman in Revelation who was to be clothed with light to interpret the Word of God” (Stetson 1913/1917:87). Here Stetson was unabashedly claiming that Eddy was that “woman clothed with the sun” (Rev. 12:1–2). She was not alone in asserting this view of Eddy (Thomas 1994:271-273).

Religion scholar Susan Hill Lindley has written that “any potential rivals [to Eddy] who arose, most notably her disciple, Augusta Stetson, were ruthlessly cut off” (Lindley 1996:270). Lindley is correct that Eddy saw herself as the only “Leader” of her movement, but both Stetson and the Mother Church Directors acted in a heavy-handed manner. According to Mother Church spokesman Alfred A. Farlow (1860-1919), Stetson’s expulsion was an “act of discipline” (Farlow, 1909, quoted in Swensen 2020:39). Another powerful woman was also cast aside at this time. Dittemore told Strickler that the Board of Directors had recently investigated a “large church where a woman was to all appearances as strongly intrenched as Mrs. Stetson is in First Church [New York].” The Directors engineered her ouster “within the space of 48 hours” (Strickler 1909:245). Since Eddy “looked to [professional] men as the public face of Christian Science” and depended on self-effacing women to “build the movement from the ground up” (Gottschalk 2006:185), Stetson’s towering presence and her polarizing efforts constituted a severe threat to that strategy.

Stetson’s expulsion marked the beginning of the Mother Church Directors’ campaign to achieve corporate-style centralization, conformity, and unity in the Church of Christ, Scientist denomination, a process that included both men and women. This process gained momentum after Eddy’s death late in 1910. By 1912, Farlow, who had been for many years the powerful and independent Manager of the Committees on Publication for The Mother Church, found himself “by no means as influential as he was” (Hendrick 1912:482). He became ill, took a lengthy leave of absence, and resigned his post in 1914 (New York Tribune 1914:1). (In 1900 Eddy had instituted state Committees on Publication—two for California—to act as watchdogs to protect the movement from clerical, medical, and legislative threats.) In 1922, the Directors further consolidated their authority when they expelled the three independent-minded male Trustees of the Christian Science Publishing Society after a protracted and bitter lawsuit in 1919–1921, dubbed the “Great Litigation” (Swensen 2020:40–46). In 1919, the Directors fired the uncooperative Dittemore and replaced him with Eddy student Annie M. Knott (1850–1941), the first woman to serve on the Board. At the start of the legal proceedings, Stetson noted, “Now there is another trial in Boston. We see verified the words in Psalm 7:15” (quoted in Cunningham 1994:198). This verse reads “He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made” (KJV). Therefore, the jettisoning of Stetson was part of a major restructuring of the Christian Science movement (Swensen 2020:49).

Superb organizer, builder of the celebrated Beaux Arts church edifice in New York City, successful healer, gifted speaker, talented poet, and writer of spiritual music, was, for a time, a model of a successful woman religious leader. Beloved by her students, she nonetheless fell by the wayside when her assertive behavior threatened the controversial church organization that Eddy and her male Directors were building. Stetson’s numerous accomplishments invite further study, and a place in the history of the world’s religious leaders.

IMAGES

Image #1: Augusta E. Stetson (1842-1928). Courtesy of Library of Congress, #94508910.
Image #2: First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City, Central Park West and 96th Street. Carrere & Hastings, Architects. Photo Architectural Record, January 1904. Copyright expired.
Image #3: Interior of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City, Central Park West and 96th Street. Carrere & Hastings, Architects. Decorated by Charles H. Carttell. Photo Architectural Record, January 1904. Copyright expired.
Image #4: Residence of Augusta E. Stetson, New York City. The rear of the edifice of First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City is pictured to the right. Hunt & Hunt, Architects. Copyright expired.
Image #5: Portrait of Augusta E. Stetson in 1908 wearing a pin consisting of a portrait of Mary Baker Eddy encircled with diamonds and set in gold, which Eddy gave to Stetson in 1898. On the back of the pin is engraved, “Mother, 1898.” Library of Congress. See Longyear Museum, https://www.longyear.org/learn/research-archive/a-miniature-portrait-of-mary-baker-eddy-finds-its-way-to-longyear-museum/.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Stella Hadden. 1923–1939. “Illuming Light: Glimpses of Home and Records.”Three Volumes. Typescript. Union Theological Seminary (hereafter cited as UTS).

Bates, Ernest Sutherland, and John V. Dittemore. 1932. Mary Baker Eddy: The Truth and the Tradition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Baxter, Nancy Niblock. 2004. Open the Doors of the Temple: The Survival of Christian Science in the Twenty-first Century. Carmel, IN: Hawthorne Publishing.

Blome, Arnold. 1918. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, December 11. Subject File (hereafter cited as SF), Augusta E. Stetson. Mary Baker Eddy Collection, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts (hereafter cited as EC).

Dodge, Annie. 1909. Letter to Mary Baker Eddy, May 12. 028b.11.067. EC.

Dodge, Annie. 1901. Letter to Mary Baker Eddy, November 4. 028b.11.005. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1934. Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures. Boston: Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1936. Manual of The Mother Church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts. Boston: The First Church of Christ, Scientist.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1900a. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, March 21. V01708. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1900b. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, December 17. H00069. EC. Original at Huntington Library (hereafter HL).

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1909a. Letter to Archibald McLellan, July 31. L03237. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1909b. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, October 9. L16643. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1909c. Letter to Christian Science Board of Directors, September 9. L0062. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1909d. Letter to Christian Science Board of Directors, October 12. L08770. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1909e Letter to Virgil O. Strickler, November 9. L08974. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1903. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, August 4. L02565. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1905. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, May 25. H00094. EC. Original at HL.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1897a. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, October 26. V01549. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1897b. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, December 10. V01554. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1875. Science and Health. 1st ed. Boston: Christian Scientist Publishing Company.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1893a. Letter to Ebenezer Foster Eddy, January 5. V01186. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1893b. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, December 28. V01279. EC.

Eddy, Mary Baker. 1895. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, September 10. L11229. EC.

Farlow, Alfred A. 1909. Circular letter, November 24. Special #30. Committee on Publication 30. EC.

First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City (hereafter First Church, New York). 1903. Trustees Minutes, January 19. Records Management Field Collection (hereafter RMFC), box 535164. folder 357207. EC.

First Church, New York. 1909a. Reports Read at Annual Meeting of First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City, January 18. RMFC, box 535157, folder 356644. EC.

First Church, New York. 1909b. Church Inquiry of First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City, November 4. RMFC, box 535174. folder 357207. EC.

Gill, Gillian. 1998. Mary Baker Eddy. Reading, MA: Oxford Perseus Books.

Gottschalk, Stephen. 2006. Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy’s Challenge to Materialism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Hendrick, Burton J. 1912. “Christian Science since Mrs. Eddy.” McClure’s Magazine 39 (May–October): 481–94. Hathitrust.

Hicks, Rosemary R. 2004. “Religion and Remedies Reunited: Rethinking Christian Science.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 20:25–58.

Johnston, William Allen. 1907. “Christian Science in New York.” Broadway Magazine 18:154–66. Box 531514. EC.

Lewis, Amy R. 1923. Letter to Augusta E. Stetson, April 13. SF, Augusta E. Stetson. EC.

Lindley, Susan Hall. 1996. “You Have Stept Out of Your Place”: A History of Women and Religion in America. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

New York Herald. 1920. “Ousted Christian Scientists Block Church Expulsion,” December 10, p. 1.

New York Times. 1927. “Mrs. Stetson Says She Will Never Die,” August 1, p. 10.

New York Times. 1904. “Our Hats Are All Alike,” June 2, p. 8. 

New York Times. 1903. “Built from Plans Divinely Inspired,” November 30, p. 5.

New York Tribune. 1914. “Science Leader Resigns: Alfred Farlow Forced by Illness to Quit Committee,” May 26, p. 1.

Pagels, Elaine. 2006. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-8 in Secrets of Mary Magdalene: The Untold Story of History’s Most Misunderstood Woman, edited by Dan Burstein and Arne J. De Keijzer. New York: CDS Books.

Paulson, Shirley, Helen Mathis, and Linda Bargmann. 2021. An Annotated Bibliography of Academic and Other Literature on Christian Science. Chesterfield, MO: Scholarly Works on Christian Science.

Peel, Robert 1977. Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Peel, Robert 1971. Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Trial. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stanley, May. 1917. “Mrs. Stetson Discusses Her Musical Beliefs,” July 14. Musical America 26:11-12.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1914/1917. Vital Issues in Christian Science: A Record of Unsettled Questions which Arose in the Year 1909, Between the Directors of the Mother Church, the First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts, and First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York City, Eight of its Nine trustees and Sixteen of its Practitioners. Second Edition. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1913/1917. Reminiscences, Sermons, and Correspondence Proving Adherence to the Principle of Christian Science as Taught by Mary Baker Eddy. 2nd ed. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1909. Composite Letter, July 10. Field Collection (hereafter cited as FLDC) 6, box 535174. EC.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1897. Letter to Mary Baker Eddy, July 10. (CH92 (c1). EC.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1894. Letter to Mary Baker Eddy, June 22. CH92 (c1). EC.

Stetson, Augusta E. n.d. “Obstetrics” AS550. Typescript. Augusta E. Stetson Collection, HL.

Strickler, Virgil. 1909. Diary. FLDC 6, box 535174. EC.

Swensen, Rolf. 2020. “A ‘Green Oak in a Thirsty Land’: The Christian Science Board of Directors Routinizes Charisma, 1910–1925.” Nova Religio 24 32–58.

Swensen, Rolf. 2018. “Mary Baker Eddy’s ‘Church of 1879’: Boisterous Prelude to The Mother Church.” Nova Religio 22, no. 1: 87–114.

Swensen, Rolf. 2010. “A Metaphysical Rocket in Gotham: The Rise of Christian Science in New York City, 1885-1910.” Journal of Religion and Society 12:1–24.

Swensen, Rolf. 2008. “‘You Are Brave but You Are a Woman in the Eyes of Men’: Augusta E. Stetson’s Rise and Fall in the Church of Christ, Scientist.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 24: 75–89.

Swihart, Altman K. 1931. Since Mrs. Eddy. New York: H. Holt and Company.

Thomas, Robert David. 1994. “With Bleeding Footsteps”: Mary Baker Eddy’s Path to Religious Leadership. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Voorhees, Amy B. 2021. A New Christian Identity: Christian Science Origins and Experiences in American Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Unattributed clipping. 1894. CH92 (c1). EC.

SUPPLEMENTARY RESOURCES

Campion, Nardi Reeder. 1976. Ann the Word. Boston: Little, Brown.

Gottschalk, Stephen. 1973. The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1924. Sermons Which Spiritually Interpret the Scriptures and Other Writings on Christian Science. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1923. Letters and Excerpts from Letters, 1889–1909, from Mary Baker Eddy . . . to Augusta E. Stetson, C.S.D. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1917. General Anthems: Light the Torch. New York: G. Schirmer.

Stetson, Augusta E. 1901. Poems: Written on the Journey from Sense to Soul. New York: Holden and Motley.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Mary Baker Eddy Library; Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary; and the Huntington Library. The staff of the Mary Baker Eddy Library at The Mother Church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts, carefully reviewed the profile for accuracy of text and references. The Committee on Publication of The Mother Church graciously helped me with the permissions process. Opinions expressed by the author in this work are solely his own and are not endorsed by The Mary Baker Eddy Library or The Mary Baker Eddy Collection.

Publication Date:
23 January 2023

Share

The Warrens

THE WARRENS TIMELINE

1926 (September 7):  Edward (Ed) Warren Miney was born.

1927 (January 31):  Lorraine Rita Warren (née Moran) was born.

1944:  Ed and Lorraine first met. They married the following year.

1945:  Ed enlisted in the Navy.

1950 (July 6):  Judith Spera (née Warren) was born.

1952:  The Warrens founded the New England Society for Psychic Research.

1952: The Warrens began collecting artifacts for their Occult Museum

1970:  The Warrens reportedly began investigating reports of a reportedly haunted Raggedy Anne doll named Annabelle. The Warrens took possession of the doll and stored it in their Occult Museum.

1972-1977:  The Warrens investigated stories of a haunting at West Point Military Academy, the Lutz family home in Amityville, New York, and the Perron family.

1980:  Gerald Brittle published The Demonologist, a biography of the Warrens.

1979:  Judith Warren met Tony Spera.

1980-1986:  The Warrens investigated a series of cases which eventually became the subjects of books: the reportedly demonic possessions of David Glatzel and Maurice Theriault, the claims of Bill Ramsey to be a Werewolf, and demonic activity in the homes of Allen and Carmen Snedeker and Jack and Janet Smurl.

1989:  The Warrens and Robert David Chase published Ghost Hunters: True Stories From the World’s Most Famous Demonologists, another biography about the Warrens and their cases.

1992-1993:  The Warrens and Robert David Chase published Graveyard: True Hauntings from an Old New England Cemetery, which described reports about the haunted Union Cemetery in Connecticut, and Werewolf: A True Story of Demonic Possession, which reported on the Bill Ramsey case.

1998-1999:  Tony Spera, the Warrens’ son-in-law conducted interviews with the Warrens about their cases for a local cable access television show called Seekers of the Supernatural

2004:  Cheryl Wicks published Ghost Tracks, a third biography of the Warrens and their work.

2006 (August 23):  Ed Warren died in Connecticut.

2013:  Warner Brothers released The Conjuring, a film based on the experience of the Perron family that featured the Warrens as central characters. The success of the film launched the The Conjuring franchise.

2013:  Judith Penney came forward with details about her longstanding intimate relationship with Ed Warren.

2014-2021:  Warner Brothers released a series of films related to the Warrens’ work: Annabelle, which was inspired by the supposedly demon possessed doll in the Warren’s museum; The Conjuring 2, which was based on the famous Enfield Haunting case in England; Annabelle: Creation, which was a fictional account of the Annabelle doll; The Nun, a fictional account about the demon Valak, the antagonist in The Conjuring 2; The Curse of La Llorona, based on a well-known Latin American folktale; Annabelle Comes Home, a successor film on Annabelle; and The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, a film loosely based on the case of David Glatzel and Arne Johnson.

2019 (April 18):  Lorraine Warren died in Connecticut

2021 (October 30): Tony Spera held the first Seekers of the Supernatural Paracon in Waterbury, Connecticut

2022 (October 21): Netflix released the first episode of 28 Days Haunted, a paranormal reality show based on the theories of the Warrens, which features Tony Spera.

2022 (October 29): The Seekers of the Supernatural Paracon returned for a second year.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

Ed and Lorraine Warren [Image at right] were a well-known demon hunting team, active from the late 1940s through the 1990s. The two claimed to have investigated over 3,000 cases of supernatural occurrences, primarily those concerning hauntings and demon possession. Over the course of their investigations, the Warrens claimed to have conducted over 7,000 interviews and witnessed 700 exorcisms (Wicks 2004:10). Ed and Lorraine founded the New England Society for Psychic Research (NESPR), and over the years accumulated a large collection of supposedly haunted items that they displayed in their personal museum, the most famous of which is a purportedly demon-possessed Raggedy Anne doll named Annabelle. The Warrens and their cases serve as the inspiration for the immensely popular Conjuring series of films.

Ed Warren Miney was born September 7, 1926. According to a biography of the Warrens published in 1980 called The Demonologist, Ed had his first supernatural experience as early as five years-old, reportedly seeing the ghost of a recently deceased landlady materialize from a small dot of light. This incident, while downplayed by his family, opened Ed up to the possibility of the supernatural. After his father told Ed to keep it to himself, Ed recalled, “Well, I never told anyone, but I never forgot what I saw” (Brittle 1980:22). Ed also recounted visions of a nun that would speak to him in dreams (Brittle 1980:23).

Lorraine Rita Warren (née Moran) was born a year later in 1927. Lorraine claimed an even closer connection to the supernatural, identifying herself as a clairvoyant and light trance medium. She claimed this ability allowed her to see into the supernatural world, as well as backwards or forwards in time. Lorraine said this ability was something she had from a very early age: “I didn’t know I had an additional sense ability, I simply thought everyone had the same God-given senses, you know – all six of them!” (Brittle 1980:23). Lorraine, like Ed, was chastised for seeing what she shouldn’t have been able to see. After participating in the Arbor Day planting of a seedling on the grounds of her Catholic girls’ school, Lorraine recalls being able to see the fully grown tree. When asked by a nun “Are you seeing into the future?” Lorraine replied in the affirmative. She faced immediate discipline, being sent away to a “retreat home” for a weekend of isolation and intense prayer. “That taught me. After that, when it came to things involving clairvoyance, I kept my mouth shut” (Brittle 1980:24).

The Warrens met at a movie theater where Ed worked as an usher in 1944 (Wicks 2004:5). Shortly thereafter, Ed enlisted in the Navy, and in 1945 his ship was attacked in the North Sea. Ed survived, and while on leave that year he married Lorraine (Wicks 2004:6). In 1950, their daughter Judith was born. After his daughter’s birth, Ed enrolled in art school, but did not finish.  By 1952, the Warrens had begun touring New England, painting supposedly haunted houses, and offering the residents of those homes the paintings in return for stories of hauntings. In the same year, the Warrens founded the New England Society for Psychic Research (NESPR) (Spera 2022).

The Warrens continued to investigate paranormal phenomena around New England, and Ed continued painting, but the Warrens remained largely out of the public eye until 1968. According to an article by Bill Hayden, written for The News Journal in Wilmington Delaware in 1974, the Warrens had an art show of Ed’s paintings in 1968 that drew many curious people eager to share their own stories of the supernatural with Ed and Lorraine (Hayden 1974).

After this art show, the Warrens saw a marked increase in interest in their ghost and demon hunting services. They gained notoriety in and around New England, becoming local celebrities. They began working with a talent agency that booked lectures at colleges across the country.

In 1973, J.F. Sawyer published Deliver Us From Evil, [Image at right] the first of many books about the life and career of Ed and Lorraine Warren.  In 1976, they were invited to investigate the Lutz home in Amityville. The success of the book The Amityville Horror, and subsequent movie, further raised the Warrens’ profile, provided them with national attention, and jumpstarted their publishing and film careers.  The Warrens continued to work with various authors throughout the 1980s and 1990s to publish books about their cases, as well as making numerous television appearances on both the local and national level.

Throughout their investigations the Warrens collected tapes, photos, and supposedly possessed or haunted objects, which they housed in their Occult Museum. The Museum remained open until 2018, when it was closed due to zoning issues, and permanently closed in 2019 after the death of Lorraine Warren (Atlas Obscura 2016).

The Warren’s popularity waned during the 1990s, but they still made television appearances during this time. In 1991, they were the subject of the made-for-TV film The Haunted, based on their investigation of the Smurl household. In 1998-1999, the Warrens had a cable access television show called Seekers of the Supernatural, hosted by their son-in-law Tony Spera.

Ed Warren died in his home in Monroe, Connecticut, on August 23, 2006. The work of the Warrens continued to inspire films. In 2009, a film called The Haunting in Connecticut was released, loosely based on Ray Garton’s book In a Dark Place, about the Warrens’ investigation of the Snedeker family. In 2013, the first film in The Conjuring series was released, which featured Ed and Lorraine as the main characters, and told the story of their experience with the Perron family. Lorraine served as a consultant on both The Conjuring (2013), and The Conjuring II (2016) (IMDB 2022)

Lorraine Warren died on April 18, 2019, in her home in Monroe, Connecticut. The Warrens’ legacy has been carried on by their son-in-law, Tony Spera, and their daughter, Judith, who has continued to operate NESPR. Tony Spera has also served as curator of the permanently closed Warren Occult Museum. As of this writing, The Conjuring franchise includes three films that bear The Conjuring name, three films based on Annabelle the haunted doll, and two “extended universe” sequels (Data Thistle 2022). The franchise is slated to continue, with production for a fourth Conjuring film currently underway.

In October 2022, Netflix released a paranormal reality show based on the theories of the Warrens called 28 Days Haunted. Three teams of paranormal investigators were sequestered in allegedly haunted locations for twenty-eight days. According to the show, the Warrens theorized that a twenty-eight day “cycle” was often necessary to resolve a haunting.  (The authors are unaware of the Warrens ever espousing such a theory and many of their investigations were concluded in a single day.  Twenty-eight days appears to be a reference to the story of the Lutz family described in The Amityville Horror.  According to that story, the Lutz’s moved into a haunted house and fled after twenty-eight days, never to return.) The show features Tony Spera and paranormal journalist Aaron Sagers watching the teams on monitors and discussing their progress.

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

Ed and Lorraine Warren were devout Roman Catholics, often observing and even assisting in exorcisms by members of the Clergy. Ed considered himself a “demonologist,” although he had no formal theological training. Despite his lack of formal education, Ed Warren formulated his own possession taxonomy which outlined five stages of demon possession (Brittle 1983:118 ). Lorraine claimed to be a clairvoyant and a light trance medium, which allowed her access to the spiritual and demonic worlds, and the ability to see and interact with the supernatural in ways that normal people cannot. As their authorized biographer Gerald Brittle (980:23) put it, “Lorraine was born with the gift of clairvoyance – the ability to see beyond physical time and space.”

The Warrens did not restrict themselves to helping only those of Catholic faith, however. Ed Warren spoke about their willingness to engage with religions outside of Catholicism: “We work with any clergy of any religion that teaches love of God and love of your fellow man. We work with all people of all faiths” (Brittle 1980:19).

The Warrens held the belief that demons were physically real, and could possess the living, requiring an exorcism. They believed demons are “invited” to possess people who dabble in anything that may be considered “occult,” such as playing with a Ouija board, going to a psychic, having a Tarot card reading, etc. Paradoxically, the Warrens also expressed belief in ideas that are not traditionally part of Catholicism, including psychic abilities, reincarnation, and the existence of Bigfoot. In the early 1970s, Ed Warren expressed a sympathetic interest in Wicca, which he regarded as the world’s oldest religion and a source of psychic abilities (Sawyer 1973:17-18).

The Warrens also believed that objects could be possessed by demons, creating dangerous haunted artifacts. Many such objects reside in the Warrens’ Occult Museum.[Image at right]

In an effort to legally prove the existence of demons and demon possession, the Warrens encouraged Arne Johnson’s lawyer to attempt a plea of not guilty by reason of demonic possession (Clendinen 1981). The trial judge did not allow a possession defense to move forward (Brittle 1983:266).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

The Warrens conducted investigations into supposed ghostly or demonic activity.  When investigating haunted locations, Lorraine would often describe psychic visions or impressions she was receiving, which Ed would then interpret to diagnose the cause of the disturbance.

In some instances, Lorraine would lead séances to contact any spirits involved in a particular case.  Ed Warren often employed a practice he called “provocation” in which he would place Christian symbols and artifacts, such as crosses, holy water, etc. in a reportedly demon possessed home. This was done to provoke an observable response from the demonic entity, due to their hatred of Christ and all things Christian (Brittle 1980:15). The Warrens alleged that they witnessed over 700 exorcisms, although Ed maintained that, as a lay Catholic, he cannot perform the ritual of exorcism himself and has never attempted to do so. However, the Warrens would work with members of splinter Catholic groups such as Bishop Robert McKenna of the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement, when they were unable to obtain a Catholic priest for an exorcism.

The Warrens would take pictures, record audio, and sometimes even record films of the supernatural activity that they would then show in their lectures.  Among their most notable images are the “ghost boy” picture [Image at right] from the Amityville case, which depicts an unknown child, and the video footage of an alleged ghost called “the White Lady” in Union Cemetery in Easton, Connecticut. The lectures the Warrens delivered were not framed as performances or exhibitions, but as scientific presentations of their discoveries while researching the supernatural.  However, their media undoubtedly had entertainment value, especially for college students who attended their lectures out of curiosity.

The Warrens pioneered contemporary ghost hunting by combining traditional Catholicism, scientific-sounding terminology, and elements borrowed from folk magic and Eastern religion.  Most ghost hunting groups today use a similar mix of practices in their attempts to discover supernatural entities.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

The Warrens founded the New England Society for Psychic Research (NESPR), [Image at right]  and headed a team of investigators, most notably the Warrens’ nephew, John Zaffis, and their son-in-law, Tony Spera. The Warrens were seminal figures in the development of contemporary ghost hunting, and many of the beliefs and terms that they popularized, such as the stages of possession, are still used by ghost hunters and self-educated demonologists today.

NESPR has remained in operation, currently headed by Tony and Judy Spera (née Warren). [Image at right] Tony Spera is a former Bloomfield, Connecticut, police officer, and began work for the Warrens in the mid-1980s. Spera assisted with investigations and eventually served as the host for a local Connecticut cable access interview show called Seekers of the Supernatural.  Spera also served as curator of the Warrens permanently closed museum of haunted artifacts. In 2021 Tony Spera organized the first “Seekers of the Supernatural Paracon,” a convention with guest-speakers on ghost-hunting and related topics, as well as exhibits of artifiacts from the Warrens’ occult museum.  The second Paracon in 2022 drew an estimated 5,000 attendees (Harrelson and Laycock 2022).

Although Judy Spera is listed as a Co-Director of NESPR on their website, she has expressed little desire to continue her parents’ legacy, which is why Tony Spera has taken the lead with NESPR, the Occult Museum, and Warren related events and media. [Image at right] Judy explained, “I know my husband will take it from here, and he inherited the museum because I certainly didn’t want it. He’d better stay around longer than me, and take care of that place!” (Sagers 2020).

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

The Warrens faced harsh criticism throughout their career, including many accusations of fraud. Following are some notable examples.

The haunting of the Lutz family, which provided the source material for the book and later film entitled The Amityville Horror, is widely known as a hoax. The claims of the Lutz family, on which the Warrens based their investigation, have been largely disproven in the forty-plus years since the case first garnered the spotlight. Skeptics Joe Nickell and Robert E. Bartholomew point out numerous glaring factual errors that undermine the supernatural tale (Bartholomew and Nickell 2016). Among them is the claim that the Amityville Historical Society indicates that a local Indigenous Tribe, the Shinnecock, used the site of the home as a “location of great suffering” and that it was “infested by demons.” Nickell and Bartholomew spoke to the Society and were told this claim is pure fiction (Bartholomew and Nickell 2016). Similarly, the Lutzes allege there was confirmation by police who were called to the home and witnessed phenomena, but o police record of a call being answered at the home exists (Bartholomew and Nickell 2016).

William Weber was the attorney for Ronald DeFeo, who murdered six people in the Amityville house before the Lutzes purchased the property.  According to Weber, George and Kathy Lutz approached him with their claims of supernatural activity in the house. Weber felt that reports of a haunting might persuade some jurors that DeFeo had been the victim of demonic manipulation. But he was more interested in how the story would help him sell a book about the DeFeo case. According to Weber, the Lutzes’ entire story was a fabrication. The foul odor, the flies, the mysterious slime, and the mysterious early morning marching band reported by the Lutzes were all carefully crafted to make the story more credible. By working with Weber, the Lutzes were able to weave details from the DeFeo case into their hoax. “We created this horror story over many bottles of wine that George was drinking,” Weber stated, “We were really playing with each other. We were creating something the public would want to hear about” (Associated Press 1979). Weber alleges he told Kathy that the murders occurred at 3am and she incorporated this fact into her story. “‘Well that’s good,’ Kathy said. ‘I can say I’m awakened by noises at that hour of the day and I could say I had dreams that hour of the day about the DeFeo family’” (Associated Press 1979). Weber had proposed a book deal in which the Lutz family would have received twelve percent of the profits.  Instead, the Lutzes struck a deal with author Jay Anson for fifty percent of the profits and cutting Weber out. After Anson’s book The Amityville Horror became a financial success, Weber filed a lawsuit against the Lutzes, alleging breach of contract and fraud (Associated Press 1979).  These revelations became problematic for the Warrens who continued to stake their reputation on the Amityville story.

There is also suspicion about the origins of Annabelle [Image at right], the most popular artifact from the Warrens’ Occult Museum.  There is no source of the famous Annabelle story outside of the Warrens themselves. The names of the participants and the details of the story change in different accounts, and no interviews with the actual people who supposedly experienced the possessed doll exist. Although the Annabelle story supposedly happened around 1970, there is no mention of Annabelle in Deliver Us From Evil (1973), the first book published about the Warrens. Although likely the most famous artifact, Annabelle, is not unique in this regard. There is little corroboration for many of the supposedly haunted and possessed items in the Warren’s collection.

Many people who worked with the Warrens on books or on various cases have claimed the Warrens were only interested in a good story and the money that would accompany a hit book or movie. Horror author Ray Garton was commissioned to write the book In A Dark Place about the Warrens’s investigation of a haunting experienced by the Snedecker family.  But when Garton interviewed the Warrens and Snedeckers, he found their stories were inconsistent.  He related the following anecdote about trying to discuss the inconsistencies with Ed: “[Ed] said (and this is very close to a quote because I can still hear him saying it in my head), ‘These people are crazy. All the people who come to us are crazy, otherwise they wouldn’t come to us. Just use what you can and make the rest up. You write scary books, right? That’s why we hired you. Just make it a good, scary story and it’ll be fine’” (Garton 2022).

There is no record of Lorraine Warren having had her psychic abilities tested by Thelma Moss at UCLA. The account of the testing comes only from the Warrens themselves, and changes with further telling. The Demonologist (1980) states Lorraine was tested at UCLA.  Ghost Hunters (1989) says Lorraine was tested at UCLA by one “Dr. Viola Barron.” Ghost Tracks (2004) claims Lorraine was tested by Thelma Moss.  Moss was a parapsychologist at UCLA and one of her cases was adapted into the film The Entity (1982).  However, Barry Taff, who worked closely with Moss, stated that he never met the Warrens and considers them “nuts” and “religious fanatics” (ParaPeculiar podcast 2022).

In 2013, shortly after the release of the first Conjuring film, allegations surfaced from Judith Penney, who claimed that she had a relationship with Ed Warren that began when she was fifteen and Ed was in his late thirties. Penney alleged that in 1963 she began living with Ed and Lorraine and had a sexual relationship with Ed for the next forty years, the nature of which was known to Lorraine (Masters and Cullins 2017).  Penney’s story only became known due to a lawsuit filed by Tony DeRosa-Grund, a producer on the first Conjuring film who claims he was shut out of profits from the sequels and spinoffs.  DeRosa-Grund also filed a lawsuit with Gerald Brittle, author of The Demonologist, over ownership rights of the Warrens’ life and stories (Masters and Cullins 2017).  Brittle knew that Penney lived with the Warrens and she is described in The Demonologist as “a young woman who works as a liaison when Ed and Lorraine are out of town” (Brittle 1980: 186).  It seems DeRosa-Grund sought to use Penney’s story as leverage to get a favorable settlement from Warner Brothers.  Warner Brothers has since settled the suits, although DeRosa-Grund still maintains the studio sought to cover up the improper relationship as it would damage the reputation of the Warrens, and possibly harm the profitability of the franchise (Cullins 2017).

Judith Penny maintains that the relationship with Ed was real, and according to an article in The Hollywood Reporter by Kim Masters and Ashley Cullins, she has not received any payment or settlement from Warner Brothers, the Warrens, or anything connected to The Conjuring franchise.

IMAGES

Image #1:  Ed and Lorraine Warren.
Image #2: The cover of Deliver Us from Evil.
Image #3: Warrens’ Occult Museum.
Image #4: Ghost Boy.
Image #5: Logo of the New England Society for Psychic Research.
Image #6: Tony Spera, Judith Warren, and Ed Warren.
Image #7: The Annabelle doll from The Amityville Horror film.

REFERENCES

Associated Press. 1979. “Amityville Horror Amplified Over Bottles of Wine––Lawyer.” Lakeland Ledger July 27. Accessed from https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=U-hMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5288,3763517&dq=william+weber+amityville on 7 December 2022.

Atlas Obscura. 2016. “The Warren’s Occult Museum Monroe, Connecticut.” Accessed from https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/the-warrens-occult-museum-monroe-connecticut on 28 December 2022.

Bartholomew, Robert E., Nickell, Joe. 2016. “The Amityville Hoax at 40: Why the Myth Endures.” Skeptic 21, Accessed from https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=txshracd2487&id=GALE|A477640965&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=af072b37 on 6 December 2022.

Brittle, Gerald. 1983. The Devil in Connecticut. New York: Bantam Books.

Brittle, Gerald. 1980. The Demonologist. Los Angeles and New York: Greymalkin Media

Clendinen, Dudley, 1981. “Defendant in a Murder Puts The Devil on Trial.” New York Times, March 23, 1981, B1, B6.

Cullins, Ashley, 2017 “Warner Bros. Settles $900M Lawsuit Over The Conjuring.” The Hollywood Reporter, December 13.  Accessed from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/warner-bros-settles-900m-lawsuit-conjuring-1067445/ on 7 February 2023

Data Thistle. 2022 “Films: The Conjuring Universe.” Accessed from https://film.datathistle.com/listings/the-conjuring-universe/ on 29 December 2022.

Garton, Ray. 2022. Electronic Interview with the authors, April 13.

Harrelson, Eric and Joseph Laycock.  “Paranormal Vodka, Exorcists and a Demonic Doll: Welcome to Paracon, Based on the Work of the Demon-Hunters Who Inspired The ‘Conjuring’ Series,” Religion Dispatches, November 7, 2022.  Accessed from https://religiondispatches.org/paranormal-vodka-exorcists-and-a-demonic-doll-welcome-to-paracon-based-on-the-work-of-the-demon-hunters-who-inspired-the-conjuring-series/ on 8 February 2022.

Internet Movie Database. 2022 “Lorraine Warren” Accessed from https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0912933/?ref_=tt_cl_t_15 on 29 December 2022

Masters, Kim., Cullins, Ashley. 2017. “War Over ‘The Conjuring’: The Disturbing Claims Behind a Billion-Dollar Franchise” Hollywood Reporter. Accessed from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/war-conjuring-disturbing-claims-behind-a-billion-dollar-franchise-1064364/ on 6 December 2022

ParaPeculiar Podcast, “Episode 25: Dr. Barry Taff” (December 2022).

Sagers, Aaron. 2020. “Devil’s Road: Judy Spera Details Life Growing Up As A Warren” Den of Geek. Accessed from https://www.denofgeek.com/culture/devils-road-judy-spera-warren/ on 28 December 2022.

Spera, Tony. 2022. “Timeline.” Accessed from https://tonyspera.com/about/ on 28 December 2022.

Wicks, Cheryl. 2004. Ghost Tracks. Los Angeles, New York: Greymalkin Media.

Publication Date:
19 January 2023

Share

PTL

PTL TIMELINE

1940 (January 2):  Jim Bakker was born in Muskegon, Michigan.

1961(April 1):  Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye LaValley married in Minneapolis.

1965 (September):  The Jim and Tammy Show premiered on the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)

1966 (November):  The 700 Club debuted on CBN.

1972 (November):  Bakker formed Trinity Broadcasting Systems (TBS) in Southern California.

1973 (Spring):  The PTL Club premiered on TBS.

1974:  Jim and Tammy Bakker moved to Charlotte, North Carolina.

1978 (January 2):  Bakker broke ground for Heritage USA.

1979 (March):  The FCC started an investigation into PTL’s use of funds.

1978:  Bakker launched the PTL satellite network.

1980 (December 6):  Jim Bakker had a sexual relationship with Jessica Hahn, a twenty-one-year-old church secretary from Long Island, New York.

1982 (April 26):  PTL opened its first People That Love Center at Heritage USA.

1983:  Bakker announced the launching of the “lifetime partnerships.”

1983 (January):  The Total Learning Center opened.

1983 (June):  PTL opened the Heritage Inn, a ninety-six room motel.

1983 (December 7):  PTL broke ground for the $25,000,000 504-room Heritage Grand Hotel.

1984 (February):  Bakker began to promote the lifetime partnerships on the air.

1984 (September):  Bakker announced another round of lifetime partnerships. This time the partnerships were for the twenty-one-story, 500-room Heritage Ground Towers.

1984 (December 22):  Heritage Grand opened, six months behind schedule.

1985 (February 19):  Bakker announced the Silver lifetime partnerships.

1985 (September 4):  Bakker announced a new lifetime partnership program, the Silver 7,000.

July 1986:  PTL dedicated the Heritage Island Water Park, Fort Hope, and Kevin’s House.

1986:  6,000,000 people visited Heritage USA, making it the third most visited attraction in the United States behind Disneyland and Disney World.

1987 (January 2):  Bakker broke ground for the Crystal Palace Ministry Center.

1987 (March 19):  Bakker resigned from PTL after his December 1980 sexual tryst with Jessica Hahn became public.

1987 (June 12):  PTL declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

1988 (December 5):  Jim Bakker was indicted on federal charges for mail and wire fraud.

1989 (October):  Bakker was found guilty of charges of mail and wire fraud. He was sentenced to forty-five years in prison.

1990 (May):  Morris Cerullo, along with a group of Malaysian investors, bought PTL for $52,000,000, $7,000,000 for the satellite network and $45,000,000 for the 2,200-acre Heritage USA complex. Cerullo renamed the park New Heritage USA.

1990 (December 14):  Bakker was found guilty of common-law fraud in a class-action lawsuit and was ordered to pay $129,700,000 in damages.

1991(February):  An appeals court reduced Bakker’s sentence to eighteen years.

1992 (December):  Bakker’s sentence was reduced to eight years.

1994 (July):  Bakker was released from prison.

1997 (November):  New Heritage USA closed.

1998:  Bakker married Lori Graham.

2003:  Bakker started The Jim Bakker Show.

2007 (July 20):  Tammy Faye died after cancer spread to her lungs and spine.

2008:  Bakker moved to Blue Eye, Missouri to start Morningside.

2020 (March):  Federal regulators and Attorneys General from New York and Missouri ordered Bakker to stop selling colloidal silver as a cure for COVID-19.

2021 (June):  The Missouri Attorney general announced the settlement of the state’s lawsuit against Bakker.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

Jim Bakker was born on January 2, 1940, in Muskegon, Michigan, to parents Raleigh and Furnia Bakker. Raleigh was a machinist at a piston plant and Furnia was a homemaker. Bakker grew up in a strict Pentecostal household. His father once washed his mouth out with soap for saying “Gee whiz” and his mother “emphasized fastidious standards of cleanliness.” Some of his earliest memories are of a three-foot tall picture of a human eye that hung in his Sunday school room as he and the other children sang, “His eye is watching you, you, you: (Wigger 2017:10). By the time he was in high school, Bakker started to come out of his shell. He participated in the school newspaper, deejayed dances, and hosted a series of popular variety shows.

Two life-altering events happened to Bakker as a youth. When he was eleven years old, he was molested by a man (Bakker called him Russell) from his church. The abuse lasted for several years. The second event happened a few years later when Bakker was sixteen. In December 1956, he ran over three-year-old Jimmy Summerfield in his father’s 1952 Cadillac.

In Bakker’s telling, running over Summerfield (who survived the accident) convinced him to attend North Central Bible College in Minneapolis, where he enrolled in 1959. At North Central, Bakker continued to be involved in the school newspaper and theater productions. When he was a sophomore, he met Tammy LaValley, who he asked to marry after three dates. They were married in April 1961. After marrying, the Bakkers dropped out and became itinerant Pentecostal evangelists. Especially popular was their puppet show, which Tammy brought to life, giving the puppets voices and personalities. [Image at right]

The puppet show soon caught the attention of Pat Robertson, founder of the upstart TV station Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). Their first show, initially called Come on Over but changed to the Jim and Tammy Show to reflect the young couple’s popularity, premiered in September 1965.

Bakker also proved himself to be an effective fundraiser during CBN’s November 1965 telethon. That year’s fundraising goal was $120,000, up from $40,000 the previous year. As the telethon wore on, it became clear that the station wasn’t going to reach its goal. After Bakker’s tearful plea for money, pledges poured in, raising enough money to pay off the station’s debts and fund operations for the coming year. The following telethon was equally successful.

The fundraising success gave Bakker enough confidence to take his idea for a Christian talk show to Robertson. When the Bakkers were traveling evangelists, they decompressed at night by watching the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Bakker wanted to create a similarly entertaining show for a Christian audience. The new show, the 700 Club, debuted in November 1966.

By 1972, Jim and Tammy started to feel ostracized at CBN. Many of the staff believed they were “prima donnas” and Bakker and Robertson clashed over competing visions for the station. Bakker wanted to keep it 100 percent Christian while Robertson wanted to expand CBN’s audience by showing reruns of secular shows like Leave It to Beaver, The Dick Van Dyke Show, and Gilligan’s Island. When it became clear that he wasn’t going to get his way, Bakker resigned from CBN in November 1972. The Bakkers then formed their own non-profit corporation, Trinity Broadcasting Systems (TBS), which was approved to operate in California in June 1973. Bakker also started a new talk show, the PTL Club, short for “Praise the Lord.”

As had happened at CBN, Jim and Paul Crouch, his new partner at TBS, clashed over the direction of the station. Though they were Pentecostals, Crouch and his backers didn’t like Bakker’s flamboyant style. They also fought over money. At the end of November 1973, Jim and Tammy were once again unemployed. The couple moved again. This time to Charlotte, North Carolina, to start another TV station, PTL.

PTL grew rapidly in the second half of the 1970s. PTL expanded its affiliate stations, created a satellite network, purchased new properties, and launched ministries in Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. In 1974, there were only a half dozen people on staff. By 1979, there was 700 people on staff.

These years also saw Bakker at his most innovative. At PTL, Bakker continued to develop the talk show format to keep it relevant and appealing. Guests included Little Richard, Colonel Sanders, [Image at right] former Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver, bodybuilder Lou Ferrigno, Maria Von Trapp of Sound of Music Fame, Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, Apollo astronaut James Irwin, actors Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Dean Jones, Mr. T, Dale Evans, and Roy Rogers, Watergate figure Chuck Colson, and World Heavyweight boxing champion George Foreman.

One major innovation was the satellite network, which he launched in early 1978. The satellite network allowed PTL to air programming twenty-four hours a day. Only HBO and Ted Turner’s station in Atlanta beat PTL into space.

The next innovation was Heritage USA, which Bakker broke ground for on January 2, 1978. Part community, part church ministry, and part vacation resort, Heritage USA grew to 2,300 acres, had a 500-room hotel, one of the largest waterparks in the United States, a petting zoo, horseback riding trails, tennis courts, a home for unwed mothers, a recreation of the Upper Room, Billy Graham’s childhood home, a home for disabled children, a miniature railroad, paddleboats, a state-of-the-art television studio, and several condominium and housing developments. [Image at right] By 1986, it was one of the most popular attractions in the United States, drawing 6,000,000 visitors that year, third only to Disneyland and Disney World.

Fundraising for Heritage USA wasn’t the only stressor in Bakker’s life. His marriage was also falling apart, mostly as a result of his obsession with building Heritage USA and Tammy’s own affairs. Don Hardister, PTL’s head of security at the time, remembered that it “was a miserable, miserable time” (Wigger 2021). Though their accounts differ and have changed with time, Bakker and Jessica Hahn, who was a twenty-one-year-old church secretary at the time, both agree that they had sex on December 6, 1980, in a Clearwater Beach, Florida, hotel room. To keep the affair secret, some PTL executives, with funds from contractor Roe Messner, paid Hahn $265,000 in hush money.

Nothing at PTL came cheap. In the fall of 1983, while trying to raise money to build the $25,000,000, 500-room Heritage Grand Hotel, Bakker came upon a simple fundraising tactic. In exchange for a one-time gift of $1,000, Bakker promised 25,000 “lifetime partners” that they would receive four days and three nights free lodging at the Heritage Grand every year for the rest of their lives. Bakker started promoting the lifetime partnerships on the air in February 1984. By July, PTL sold over 25,000 partnerships and received over 13,000 pledges. This was just the first of several lifetime partnerships for other construction projects, most notably another 500-room hotel, the Heritage Towers, which were never completed. In all, PTL supporters bought more than 150,000 lifetime partnerships.

On March 19, 1987, Bakker resigned from PTL after his tryst with Hahn became public. In a phone call with reporters and editors from the Charlotte Observer, during which he read from a prepared statement, Bakker said, that he had been “wickedly manipulated by treacherous former friends and then colleagues who victimized me with the aid of a female confederate” (“Jim Bakker” 1987). It was also at this time that Bakker’s alleged homosexual behavior was made public, though Bakker denied these revelations under oath. Shortly after his resignation, Bakker had a meeting with the Baptist fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, who Bakker chose because he was afraid that his fellow Pentecostal and rival, Jimmy Swaggart, had been eyeing the PTL satellite network and Heritage USA. Bakker and Falwell’s accounts differ about the meeting. Bakker has said that Falwell pushed him to give up control over PTL and that he would take over for about thirty to ninety days until the Hahn story dissipated, allowing Bakker to return to his positions as president, chairman of the board, and pastor of the church. Falwell claimed that it was Bakker who asked him to take over and that there was no timeline for his return.

When Falwell’s accountants finally got access to PTL’s book, they were shocked to discover that PTL was $65,000,000 in debt and losing $2, million a month and that from 1984 to 1986, it spent $40,000,000 more than it took in. Even as the ministry sank deeper into debt, the Bakkers continued to prosper. Between January 1984 and March 1987, for instance, the Bakkers drew $4.800,000 in salary and bonuses. With the exception of a few insiders, nobody was prepared for these numbers. After the discovery of PTL’s debt and the Bakkers’ compensation, Falwell declared that Bakker had turned PTL into “a scab and cancer on the face of Christianity” (Leland 1987).

The revelation of the Hahn hush money and PTL’s financial state caught the attention of federal regulators. In December 1988, a federal grand jury indicted Bakker on charges of mail and wire fraud. The ensuing trial focused on Bakker’s fundraising between 1983 and 1987, or the years when the lifetime partnerships were sold. Federal prosecutors alleged that Bakker had knowingly oversold lifetime partnerships in order to cover PTL’s massive debt and to prop up his own luxurious lifestyle.

After a tumultuous five-month trial, which started in August 1989, and during which a witness collapsed on the stand and Bakker experienced a mental breakdown, a jury found him guilty of mail and wire fraud. [Image at right] Federal judge Robert Potter, also known as “Maximum Bob,” sentenced Bakker to forty-five years in prison. After a series of hearings reduced his sentence, Bakker was released from prison in July 1994.

He came out of prison a changed man. Most notably, he renounced the prosperity gospel in his post-prison autobiography, I Was Wrong. In prison, he had time to closely study the Bible, something he had neglected while he was running PTL. In his book, he confessed that he had “become obsessed with building Heritage USA” and that “money [became] more important than ministry” (Bakker 1996). He was even more forceful in his denunciation of the prosperity gospel in his 1998 book, Prosperity and the Coming Apocalypse. In the book, he said that he had preached a “Disneyland gospel” and admitted the moral failure of his lifestyle and salary at PTL.

While Bakker was trying to rehabilitate his image, Heritage USA fell in disrepair. Most of it was turned into Charlotte’s suburbs, but, in September 2004, Pastor Rick Joyner bought fifty-two acres of the old Heritage USA grounds. Joyner’s ministry rehabilitated the Heritage Grand into a retreat and conference center, but the Towers remain a shell.

After divorcing Bakker in March 1992, Tammy married Roe Messner, the contractor who built most of Heritage USA, in October 1993. She also embarked on her own career. Starting in December 1995, she co-hosted the Jim J. and Tammy Faye Show with openly gay actor Jim J. Bullock. By this time, Tammy had become a gay icon. Bullock reflected that gay people embraced Tammy because, “She was odd and different and did not fit into any mold”

(Wigger 2017:333). Bullock and Tammy taped fifty shows together before she was diagnosed with colon cancer in March 1996. Three years later, she was the subject of a documentary film, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, narrated by RuPaul Charles. The film, which portrayed her as more than just a disgraced preacher’s wife and highlighted her candor and resilience, won her many new admirers. In 2004, she starred alongside several washed-up celebrities like Erik Estrada, Traci Bingham, Vanilla Ice, Trishelle Cannatella, and Ron Jeremy in season two of the VH1 series, The Surreal Life. [Image at right] Tammy Faye died on July 20, 2007.

Bakker has since returned to his roots as a fundraiser, empire builder, and television host. On January 2, 2003, Bakker returned to television, hosting The Jim Bakker Show from the Studio City Café in Branson, Missouri. Bakker, who assumed he would never return to television, was apparently sick for the two months leading up to the show’s premiere. “It was very frightening to go back on the air,” Bakker said. “But I spent 40 years of my life in front of the camera, and those first weeks back, I finally felt like I’ve come back home.” Though his operation paled in comparison to the glory days of the 1980s, Bakker hoped his return would give people “hope that the past can be past, that God can use them no matter what they have been through” (Buckstaff 2003).

Five years after his return, Bakker moved to Blue Eye, Missouri, about thirty miles southwest of Branson, where he now runs Morningside. With the exception of its scaled-down size, nearly everything at Morningside resembles Heritage USA. Its façade looks a lot like the Heritage Grand Hotel and its indoor Grace Street closely resembles Main Street at Heritage USA. Grace Street also has condominiums, a TV set, a restaurant, chapel, beauty salon and spa, general store, and cinema. [Image #6] Morningside, which cost an estimated $25,000,000, was bankrolled by businessman Jerry Crawford, who credited Bakker with saving his marriage on a trip to PTL in 1986 (McKinney 2017).

Bakker’s new show has a millennial, prepper feel. He sells products that he thinks people will need during times of crisis, including buckets of freeze-dried food, camping supplies, solar generators, and water filters. His guests also reflect this new message. Bakker and his guests often talk about how current events are signs of Christ’s imminent return (Funk 2018).

During this time, Bakker has also become more involved in politics. When he was the head of PTL, he generally avoided politics, especially the divisive culture wars, but he has since embraced them. He was a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump before, during, and after his presidency.

In May 2020, Bakker suffered what his son described as a “minor stroke” (Marusak 2020).

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

Bakker’s belief system can be broken down into two different eras. The first, during his PTL days, was centered around the prosperity gospel. As a prosperity preacher, Bakker believed that health and wealth were signs of God’s favor. At the center of Bakker’s prosperity message was “seed faith.” The idea was pretty simple: the more one gave to a Christian ministry, the more one could expect to be blessed. The less one gave, the less one could expect to prosper. This was an era of what historian Kate Bowler has labeled “hard prosperity,” which “drew a straight line between life circumstances and a believer’s faith” (Bowler 2013:97). Bakker’s version of the prosperity gospel was about more than just economic prosperity, however. PTL embodied what some historians have called the “gospel of the abundant life,” a more inclusive term than prosperity gospel. Visitors to Heritage USA (along with viewers on television) heard about how to live a more fulfilled life through exercise and healthy eating habits and sex lives.

Wrapped up in this prosperity message was a vision of an idyllic American past. Bakker blatantly borrowed from the Magic Kingdom’s “Frontierland” and “Main Street USA” to create a “pastiche of iconic Americana.” It might not be a surprise that the park’s popular Passion Play had its opening day on July 4, 1984 (Johnson 2014).

The second, and his most current, has been centered around the apocalypse. In 1998, Bakker wrote in his book, Prsperity and the Comin Apocalypse, “In a nutshell, the new message [is] this: the era of prosperity is over; perilous times are upon us, the end of the age is at hand” (Bakker 1998:6). As historian Matthew Avery Sutton has pointed out, apocalypticism has been a central feature of American evangelicalism since the late nineteenth century, surfacing “at crucial moments in American history” (Sutton 2014:7). Bakker’s apocalypticism became heightened after the attacks of September 11, 2001. In his 2012 book, Time Has Come, Bakker claimed to have had a vision of the attacks and Hurricane Katrina. In April 2020, he claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic was the fulfillment of a prophecy he had received months earlier.

Bakker has become more overtly political as well, often promoting right-wing conspiracy views. In July 2017, he said that anyone who opposed President Donald Trump would face God’s wrath. “God is doing something,” he said on his TV show. “God is speaking. God is taking over. And I’ll tell you what, I wouldn’t fool with Trump. You better be careful, because I want to tell you, there is going to be judgment come if America turns its back on what God is trying to do, because God is trying to save America” (Mantyla 2017). In April 2018, he claimed that opposition to Trump was a sign that “America is in a war against God” (Mantyla 2018). During the 2020 presidential election, Bakker commented that Christians had a duty to vote because the other side was “voting for their faith, and their faith is Satan worship.” In September 2021, Bakker held a three-day telethon with noted 2020 election conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell during which they sold pillows and promoted election fraud claims (Edwards 2021).

The apocalyptic message has seemed to work for Bakker. As of 2017, Morningside opened two new building projects. The Big Red Barn is six stories tall, has space for horses, and has enough storage for millions of servings of survival, according to Bakker. Lori’s House, named after Lori Bakker, is a home for unwed mothers that provides free housing, food, and other services pregnant women need.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

At the center of many practices at Heritage USA was a deep faith in the Holy Spirit’s guidance. This faith played itself out in a number of ways. First were the ways in which Bakker often talked about money. Hearkening back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century faith mission movement, Bakker often went into expensive building projects with little to no capital, believing that God would provide. Bakker wrote in 1977, “Some people think you need plenty of money in the bank before you can begin to operate in faith. I never have…Remember, facts don’t count when you have God’s word on the subject” (Wigger 2017:63).

Second, Bakker followed an unscripted format on his daily talk show. Unlike other talk show hosts, including Johnny Carson, Bakker rarely used notes and almost never pre-interviewed guests, instead relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. “I don’t think a format ever came off the way it was written,” he once said, “because it was more like our type of church would be and that would be by inspiration…. If the spirit of God was moving, we would stay with whatever was happening” (U.S. v. Bakker, vol. 9, 1647). This format often gave the show a chaotic, unpredictable feel, but it was well within the evangelical tradition of rejecting read sermons or prayers.

A common fundraising ritual at PTL were the annual telethons. For six or seven hours a day of live television, Bakker went “into full huckster mode” (Wigger 2017:139) raising money for the various expensive projects at Heritage USA. The major telethon of 1983, “You and Us Together,” even had its own theme song.

For visitors to Heritage USA, Bakker’s prosperity theology wasn’t just a doctrine, but a lived experience. Guests could participate in workshops about family, sex, mental health, parenting, relationships, finances, dieting, and exercise. These workshops, held in the Total Learning Center, were important, according to John Wigger, Bakker’s biographer, because they “gave PTL the staff and facilities to work with people face-to-face rather than just over the air and provided another draw for people to come to Heritage USA” (Wigger 2017:132).

The PTL Club also instructed people on how to live a godly and abundant life. A popular topic of conversation during interviews was dramatic conversion experiences. Guests like Little Richard, Larry Flynt, and Eldridge Cleaver talked frankly about how the Lord delivered them from lives of sin. Other guests like Norman Vincent Peale, Merlin Carothers, Robert Schuller, and Frances and Charles Hunter gave advice on “how to love yourself, lose weight, improve your marriage, and reach your full potential” (Wigger 2017:67).

Bakker’s new television program, the Jim Bakker Show, has continued to feature guests who give advice on how to live godly and abundant lives, but its main focus is biblical prophecy. Guests have included New York Times best-selling authors James Rickards, Jonathan Cahn, and Joel Richardson, retired military leaders Michael Flynn, Jerry Boykin, and Robert Maginnis, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

In the beginning, PTL leadership, though sometimes haphazard, operated with a sense of mission and, perhaps most importantly, a sense of transparency. PTL leadership changed significantly in 1977 when Richard Dortch began his association with the ministry. Dortch, a long-time Assemblies of God minister and superintendent for Illinois, indulged all of Bakker’s worst habits. Under his leadership, PTL executives became more secretive.

When he was in charge of PTL, Bakker was a micromanager. He obsessed over every detail, no matter how minor, at Heritage USA, often making unrealistic demands on employees. The board of directors met infrequently and Bakker often had no idea how others on the executive committee behaved or spent the ministry’s money.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

PTL faced a number of challenges during its existence. One was religious. Despite his fame within the Pentecostal world, Bakker’s prosperity theology was controversial. Jimmy Swaggart, another prominent Assemblies of God minister, was openly hostile to Bakker’s prosperity message. In March 1987, Swaggart’s monthly magazine took swipes at Heritage USA and all it represented, going so far as to equate Bakker’s theology with some of modernity’s most corrosive ideas, including Darwinism, Freudianism, Marxism, and communism. Elsewhere, Swaggart said that PTL “was a cancer that needed to be excised from the body of Christ” (Gaillard 1987). Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist Baptist, was also hostile to Bakker’s prosperity gospel. “I think this prosperity theology (what some call health and wealth theology) is the most damnable heresy being preached in the world today,” Falwell commented in 1987 (McClain 1987).

Bakker’s prosperity theology also came under scrutiny during his federal trial. One of the prosecution’s key arguments was that Bakker misled his supporters and the PTL board of directors in order to live an extravagant lifestyle. During the trial, former aides explained how the Bakkers spent money that was supposed to be for PTL on furs, homes, automobiles, plastic surgery, houseboats, jewelry, and designer clothes. The revelations were so shocking that the Charlotte Observer noted, after one former aide testified, that the day in court was “reminiscent of ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’” (Shepard 1989).

For most of its existence, the national press paid scant attention to PTL. This all changed when the scandal broke in 1987, and PTL received extensive coverage in major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Much of the early coverage, in addition to covering Bakker’s misdeeds, revealed deep fissures within the American evangelical community as prominent evangelists like Jimmy Swaggart, John Ankerberg, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, and Robert Schuller traded barbs in the press. Bakker accused Swaggart and Falwell of a conspiracy to take over the PTL ministry. Falwell and Swaggart denied the conspiracy charge. Swaggart admitted, however, that he was responsible for starting the investigation into Bakker’s sexual sins. In its investigation, the Assemblies of God, Bakker’s former denomination, also denied that there was a conspiracy to steal PTL. The press referred to the struggle between the evangelists as a “holy war,” “Godscam,” “Godsgate,” “Heaven’sgate,” “Salvationgate,” “Pearlygate,” and “Gospelgate” (Ostling 1987).

The press was so enamored by the PTL scandal that, during Bakker’s trial, reporters had to arrive at the courthouse at 6 AM for a seat and as early as 4 AM when star witnesses took the stand. The press helped make the trial a circus. Outside the courtroom, vendors sold food and novelty Jim and Tammy items. After Bakker’s psychiatric breakdown, a local radio station held a contest challenging spectators to stick their heads under a couch as they believed Bakker had done in his lawyer’s office. The Charlotte Observer, whose work on the PTL scandal earned it a Pulitzer Prize in 1988, published “Down the Tube,” a spoof on the board game Chutes and Ladders. The intent of the game was to make PTL and the Bakkers look ridiculous. The press was especially hostile toward Jessica Hahn, calling her the “whore of West Babylon” and a harlot.

The drama played out mostly on television, drawing record audiences for shows like Nightline and Larry King Live. In April 1987, John Ankerberg went on Larry King Live to accuse Bakker of paying for sex workers, condoning wife swapping at PTL, and homosexual acts. The Bakkers also used television to their advantage. Appearing on Nightline in May 1987, they turned the tables on their opponents by successfully making themselves the victims. Bakker told Ted Koppel that he was convinced that Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell “came here with the motive to steal Heritage USA and my ministry. I made a terrible mistake” (Shepard 1987).

Throughout his career, Bakker has also faced the scrutiny of government regulators. In 1979, PTL experienced its first run-in with federal regulators. PTL had allegedly raised $337,000 for television equipment for a church in South Korea, but diverted the money to pay other bills, a violation of federal law. Bakker responded to the investigation by denouncing it as a communist threat and a plot of the devil. The FCC investigation ended in 1980.

The new ministry has not been without its controversy. In March 2020, at the peak of the coronavirus pandemic, federal regulators and Attorneys General from New York and Missouri ordered Bakker to stop selling colloidal silver as a cure for the coronavirus. According to the suit, Bakker allegedly violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by mispresenting the effectiveness of the silver as a treatment against COVID-19. The suit was settled in June 2021.

IMAGES

Image #1: Jim and Tammy Faye with their puppets.
Image #2: Jim and Colonel Sanders on the set of the PTL Club.
Image #3: Heritage USA entrance.
Image #4: Federal marshals leading Jim out of the courtroom.
Image #5: Cast of The Surreal Life.
Image #6: Grace Street at Morningside.

REFERENCES

Bakker, Jim with Ken Abraham. 1998. Prosperity and the Coming Apocalypse. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Bakker, Jim with Ken Abraham. 1996. I Was Wrong. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Bowler, Kate. 2013. Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel. New York: Oxford University Press.

Buckstaff, Kathryn. 2003. “Back in Their Good Graces.” Springfield News Leader, April 14.

Edwards, David. 2021. “Mike Lindell Teams Up with Televangelist Jim Bakker for 3-day ‘telethon’ Filled with Election Lies.” Raw Story, September 14. Accessed from https://www.rawstory.com/mike-lindell-jim-bakker/ on 12 December 2022.

Funk, Tim. 2018. “Fallen PTL Preacher Is Back with a New Message.” Charlotte Observer, February 18.

Gaillard, Frye. 1987. “Judge May Have Given Falwell a Welcome Cue to Exit.” Charlotte Observer, October 9.

“Jim Bakker: Personal Toll More Than We Can Bear.” 1987. Charlotte Observer, March 20.

Johnson, Emily. 2014. “A Theme Park, a Scandal, and the Faded Ruins of a Televangelism Empire.” Religion & Politics, October 28. Accessed from https://religionandpolitics.org/2014/10/28/a-theme-park-a-scandal-and-the-faded-ruins-of-a-televangelism-empire/ on 5 January 2023.

Leland, Elizabeth. 1987. “Falwell Defends Swaggart’s Motives, Denies Conspiracy.” Charlotte Observer, March 25.

Mantyla, Kyle. 2018. “Jim Bakker: Attacks on Trump Are a Sign That ‘America Is In A War Against God.” Right Wing Watch, April 6. Accessed from https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/jim-bakker-attacks-on-trump-are-a-sign-that-america-is-in-a-war-against-god/ on 12 December 2022.

Mantyla, Kyle. 2017. “Jim Bakker Warns That God’s Judgment Will Fall on Those Who Dare to Oppose Trump.” Right Wing Watch, July 27. Accessed from https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/jim-bakker-warns-that-gods-judgment-will-fall-on-those-who-dare-to-oppose-trump/ on 12 December 2022.

Marusak, Joe. 2020. “TV Pastor Jim Bakker Suffers Stroke, Wife Confirms.” Charlotte Observer, May 9.

McClain, Kathleen. 1987. “PTL Board Scrutinizing All Who Buy Network’s Time.” Charlotte Observer, May 24.

McKinney, Kelsey. 2017. “The Second Coming of Televangelist Jim Bakker.” Buzzfeed, May 19. Accessed from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseymckinney/second-coming-of-televangelist-jim-bakker on 5 January 2023.

Ostling, Richard. 1987. “TV’s Unholy Row: The Scandal of Televangelism,” Time, April 6. Accessed from https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,963939,00.html on 22 December 2022.

Shepard, Charles E. “Bakker Claims on TV Falwell Stole TV Ministry.” Charlotte Observer, May 27.

Shepard, Charles E. and Gary L. Wright. 1989. “Decorator Details Bakkers’ Pricey Jewels, Plush Retreats,” Charlotte Observer, September 12.

Sutton, Matthew Avery. 2014. American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Wigger, John. 2021. “Underneath All the Makeup, Who Was the Real Tammy Faye?” The Conversation, September 16. Accessed from https://theconversation.com/underneath-all-the-makeup-who-was-the-real-tammy-faye-167023 on 5 January 2023.

Wigger, John. 2017. PTL: The Rise and Fall of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s Evangelical Empire. New York: Oxford University Press.

Publication Date:
9 January 2023

Share

African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem

AFRICAN HEBREW ISRAELITES OF JERUSALEM (AHIJ) TIMELINE

1939 (October 12): Ben Carter (later, Ben Ammi) was born in Chicago, Illinois.

1959 (October 15): Carter married Patricia Price, who would later be known as Adinah Carter.

1963:  Ben Carter heard first of the theory of African American descent from Israelites.

1964:  Carter and several others founded the Abeta Hebrew Culture Center in Chicago’s Southside.

1966:  Ben Ammi received a revelation instructing him to take his people back to the Promised Land.

1967 (April 24):  Abeta met on Passover, expecting to be transported out of America

1967 (May 17):  Ammi and two colleagues travelled to Liberia to scout. They took on the name Representative Government of the Immigrants

1967 (July 7):  The first group left for Liberia.

1967 (September 19):  Ben Amm, with twenty others, left Chicago for Liberia.

1968 (April 3):  Martin Luther King’s mountaintop speech inspired Ben Ammi to announce the intention to move to Israel.

1968 (May 1):  Ben and Hezkiyahu Blackwell left for Israel.

1969 (December 21):  The second group, of thirty-nine, arrived in Israel.

1970 (Mar 6):  The final group, including the leadership, arrived in Israel.

1970 (April):  The AHIJ began petitioning the UN subcommittee on Human Rights for residence and recognition as a third party in Israel alongside Jews and Arabs.

1970:  Louis A. Bryant joined the group and brought his own followers with him to Israel. He took the name Shaleak Ben Yehuda.

1971:  Warren Brown joined the AHIJ and took the name Asiel Ben Israel.

1972 (January):  AHIJ member Cornell Kirkpatrick was killed in a brawl with other members. Six members were sentenced for manslaughter.

1973 (October):  Seventy-five members renounced their U.S. citizenship after Israel announced plans to deport all of them..

1974:  Jacques Amir (Labor Party, Dimona) raised the issue in the Knesset and was appointed chairman of a subcommittee to investigate the grou.

1974:  Shaleak ben Yehuda founded the School of the Prophets.

1975:  Shaleak ben Yehuda’s book, Black Hebrew Israelites from America to the Promised Land was published.

1977 (September 22):  The predicted apocalypse did not occur. Ben Ammi was crowned in a public ceremony as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and announced the old age of the Euro-gentiles, the “Dominion of Deception” had now ended and the New World Order had begun.

1977 (December 21-28):  The Commission for the Elimination of Racism of the New York Council of Churches made a visit to Israel to look into Dimona and the situation there.

1978 (March):  The AHIJ were accepted into the Histadrut, meaning they had the right to work.

1978 (August 4):  The Glass Committee was appointed to investigate the AHIJ.

1979 (January 14):  Ben Ammi wrote a conciliatory letter to Interior Minister Joseph Burg.

1980 (June):  The Glass Report was delivered.

1981 (January 17-28):  The BASIC delegation visited Israel and the AHIJ.

1981:  Ex-member Thomas Whitfield’s book, From Night to Sunlight, was published, documenting petty crime and abuse of members by the leadership.

1982:  Ben Ammi’s first book, God, the Black Man and Truth was published.

1983 (March 8):  Congressman Mervyn M. Dymally presented the group’s case to the House of Representatives.

1983 (November 15):  A letter from the Black Caucus to Interior Minister Burg was received, referencing the Glass Report and asking the AHIJ be allowed to stay.

1985 (July):  Thirty-two members were arrested in America on various fraud charges. All were charged; Asiel and three others were convicted.

1986 (April 17):  Forty-six members were arrested in Israel for working illegally, and deported.

1986 (April 22):  The “Day of the Show of Strength” took place. Police and military arrived in Dimona to prevent a planned march to Jerusalem in protest of the deportations.

1987 (April 29):  Ben Ammi met with the American Jewish Congress and anti-Defamation League representatives in Israel to express regret over previous antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and the beginning of a new outlook.

1987 (April 30):  Ben Ammi put out a Press Release renouncing all antisemitic, anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist claims previously made and expressing a desire to work together with Israel as Israelites.

1989:  Interior Minister Aryeh Deri visited the Village of Peace

1990:  Negotiations began between the AHIJ, Israel, and the U.S.

1991 (May):  Temporary Residence visas were granted to community members.

2003 (August):  The AHIJ were granted permanent residence status

2005 (February):  The Dr. Martin Luther King/SCLC – Ben Ammi Institute for a New Humanity opened in Dimona.

2009:  The first non-Israel born member of AHIJ gained Israeli citizenship

2013:  Ben Ammi gained citizenship.

2014 (December 12):  Ben Ammi died.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem are one group or denomination within the (Black) Hebrew Israelite movement. Hebrew Israelites (who nowadays prefer to remove the descriptor Black from the name) believe that the biblical Israelites were a Black African people, and that African Americans are their descendants. Some believe they are the only descendants, while some believe that Ashkenazi and other rabbinic Jews are also authentic descendants. The movement began at the end of the nineteenth century in the American south, when two or three ex-slaves who were ministers and Prince Hall Freemasons, received visions informing them that Blacks were Jews, and to take a new path in their preaching. The churches they founded spread across the U.S. (and further afield) throughout the twentieth century, with other individuals receiving their own visions along the way. The most well-known is perhaps Wentworth Arthur Matthew, a Caribbean immigrant who in 1919 founded the Commandment Keepers church/synagogue in Harlem, New York (Landing 2002; Dorman 2013).

Ben Carter [Image at right] was born in 1939, in Chicago’s South Side. The youngest of six children, his family had moved from Mississippi during the Great Migration of southern Blacks to northern cities. He was raised as a Baptist, and worked as a metallurgist. It was at his workplace in 1963 that a co-worker introduced him to the idea that African Americans were descended from Israelites (although he would later claim to have been told this by his parents). He began attending meetings organised by Lucius Casey, but quickly helped to found a new organisation, the Abeta Hebrew Culture Center. He received the new name Ben Ammi (“Son of my people”) from one of his teachers (all of whom were trained by Wentworth Matthew). During the racial turbulence of 1966, he received a revelation instructing him to take his people back to the Promised Land, and another Abeta member calculated that Passover of 1967 (April 24) was the biblically ordained date for this exodus. Although the group met on that date, miraculous transportation did not appear, leading them to begin planning their own journey. Having settled on the destination of Liberia, they arrived in several groups and with the help of a previous American expat purchased land on which they began farming and living. Some members knew that Liberia was only a temporary stage in the journey, but many did not. After some difficulties with their life in rural Liberia, as well as with the Liberian authorities, it was in Martin Luther King’s final speech that he invoked Moses. He claimed to have seen the Promised Land that African Americans as a people would reach, and that was taken as a sign that the time was right to progress to their final destination, Israel. Thus, in April of 1968 they began making plans to relocate again (HaGadol 1993).

Ben Ammi and one of his closest aides, Hezkiyahu Blackwell, visited Israel and the latter enrolled in a kibbutz in order to become fluent in modern Hebrew and comprehend the immigration system. From the end of 1969, other members arrived in three groups: first five, then thirty-nine, then the remaining seventy-five. The first were welcomed as unexpected new Jewish immigrants and given citizenship with full rights, but as subsequent groups arrived, they were met with more suspicion. Ultimately the whole group crammed into the few apartments granted to the first families, in the Negev cities of Dimona, Arad, and Mitzpe Ramon.

Relations with the Israeli state deteriorated quickly as members were threatened with deportation and at one point compared unfavourably with the PLO. The AHIJ responded with accusations of racism and asserted that Jews were European invaders of a land that was rightfully their own. They quickly began petitioning the United Nations to be considered, if not the rightful heirs of the land, then at least a third party with national rights alongside the Jews and Palestinians. In January of 1972, one member was killed in a brawl; six members were later convicted of manslaughter, all of which confirmed the worst suspicions about the group. Immigration officials began turning away new arrivals suspected of being members. As they began expressing antisemitic tropes and threatening divine punishment if they were not given full rights, Israel announced plans to deport them. In October of 1973, seventy-five members formally renounced their U.S. citizenship, rendering themselves stateless and thus un-deportable.

Despite conflict with the state, they found good relations with their neighbours in the southern cities, [Image at right] who were largely recent Jewish immigrants from North Africa and India. During the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, they shared the experience of huddling in air raid shelters together, and their acclaimed funk-soul band The Soul Messengers toured the country, playing for the IDF troops. Their lack of legal status caused manifold problems as most members had no right to work, education or healthcare. They were also regularly smuggling in new members from the U.S., disguised as Christian pilgrims, thus applying further stress to the already struggling resources to which they had access. Throughout the 1970s, they were a regular feature in Knesset discussions and the Israeli press, who usually painted a very negative picture. Some accusations were justified; indeed, in 1977 it was revealed that the FBI had uncovered a sophisticated operation of credit card fraud and stolen airline tickets which had been supplying the AHIJ with money. Defectors also described oppressive conditions, authoritarian rule and tortuous punishments for disobedience. One high ranking member (Shaleak Ben Yehuda) published a book in 1975 which made a wealth of antisemitic claims about the demonic nature of Jews and their influence in the enslavement of the “authentic” African Israelites. Apocalyptic predictions focused on the year 1977, at which time America would be destroyed in a nuclear war and African Americans would take control of Israel and leadership of the world (Miller 2021b). Despite this, when the Commission for the Elimination of Racism of the New York Council of Churches visited Dimona to investigate the situation there, they left with a very favourable impression of the group.

However, by at least 1978, possibly before, the AHIJ made significant attempts to reach out to Israelis, making several public statements that they would accept the responsibilities and restrictions of Israeli citizenship if offered, and were open to any negotiations with the only condition being that they were allowed to remain in Israel. Following sustained pressure from American Jewish organisations (who were concerned with the potential ruination of U.S. Black-Jewish relations), and the recommendation of Histadrut members in the Negev, the Histadrut (Israel’s national trades union) accepted all existing AHIJ members, thereby granting them employment rights. They also recommended that members receive education and health rights.

In January 1979, Ben Ammi wrote to Interior Minister Joseph Burg that:

We regard ourselves as Israelis bound up with the fate of the state of Israel both spiritually and physically […] We do not wish to do anything which would create problems or distress to the state […] We are not now, and shall not be in the future, negative factors for the state of Israel – I confess, without going into details, that when we first came to Israel, we had an outsider’s concept […] we will be productive citizens.

They wished “to stay in the Land of Israel and to serve the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Ammi specifically pledged that, “if we are so requested, we shall not add illegally a single person to our community, and we shall continue to try to convince the State of Israel” to accept other Hebrew Israelites “only through official channels.” He concluded that he hoped to open a new chapter of positive cooperation and suggested that “our community works for the State of Israel abroad and can bring about fascinating results in America and Africa” (Gruen 1983). Other parties also felt there had been a change in tone and outlook, both from the leadership and the members.

Despite being granted a disused housing complex by Dimona’s local government in 1980, which solved their overcrowding problem and the subsequent side-effects which impacted other locals), and an official Knesset investigative committee (The Glass Committee), which decided that the best overall plan was for them to be allowed to remain and granted the rights of residence, Israeli government discussions had long favoured a policy of expelling the leadership and letting the community disintegrate. The only reason for this not happening was, not Israeli indecision, as previous commentators have suggested, but the U.S.’s blanket rejection of the option. The Israeli State Archives show that the U.S. had always refused to accept any member who had renounced their American citizenship, and even threatened to respond by returning the members to Israel, along with Israelis with criminal records. That response caused uproar in Israel’s Interior Ministry, but it was powerless to alter it. The reasons for this rigid position are unclear, although possibly the U.S. thought the AHIJ was better as Israel’s problem than their own. The U.S. had only just managed in the 1960s and 1970s to contain the threat of several other Black revolutionary groups including the paramilitary Black Liberation Army. The U.S may have perceived Ben Ammi as a potential agitator they could do without.

Later in 1980, one defector, Thomas Whitfield, published a book detailing his time and crimes with the AHIJ. In January 1981, a BASIC (Black Americans in Support of Israel Committee) group visited, led by Bayard Rustin. Their investigation concluded that Israel had not demonstrated racism, and accepted the recommendations of the Glass Report that the AHIJ should be allowed to remain, with a path towards citizenship. In April 1984, Asiel responded to the lack of progress with a press conference during which he announced that Israel was planning to execute the community, and offering veiled threats to American Jews. Louis Farrakhan joined him and made some venomously antisemitic and anti-white comments in the following days. This appears to have triggered a stronger wave of persecution, and members who had not renounced their citizenship were increasingly targeted for deportation, culminating in the expulsion of forty-nine members found working illegally in April 1986. The community planned to march from Dimona to Jerusalem in protest but found their journey prevented by a troop of 600 armed police, civil defence troops and border police. Surrounded, Ammi instructed his people to stand their ground, sing and fast. That event would go down in AHIJ mythology as the Day of the Show of Strength. By the next day it was agreed that they would not march and the army would leave.

Later that year, the American trial of thirty-two members resulted in the imprisonment of Asiel and three others. They were found guilty of bank and credit card fraud and the theft of airline tickets, on a massive scale. The first conviction was overturned on a technicality, but they pled guilty at second trial in 1988 (Asiel was further found guilty of illegal lobbying on behalf of the Zimbabwe government in 2014). Regarding the fraud, Ben Ammi later stated: “We did not authorize any criminal activity. When our predicament in Israel deteriorated, we requested substantial assistance from the community in the U.S. I did not know any money was coming from illegal activities. But, I didn’t hold any investigations or ask any questions, either. Listen, we had to feed our children. We needed money” (Black 1987).

In April 1987, Ben Ammi issued a Press Release, “declaring a permanent cessation of the dissemination of all literature, statements and activities that are anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist,” and expressing a desire to work together with Israel as a united community of Israelites. The AHIJ reportedly destroyed all such literature in their possession. Ammi also met with the Israeli representatives of the American Jewish Congress and Anti-Defamation League, to inform them of the same, and to find a way forward. Some suspected that their repentance was not ideological but born of desperation as the imprisonment of their American fraud network had stripped the community of approximately $12,000 per month and Israel was slowly closing the possibilities of illegal employment. Furthermore, the Histadrut revoked their membership. At one point, the Ministry of Social Welfare was providing 350 daily hot lunches for AHIJ children, in order to avert mass starvation (Black 1987).

In 1989 Interior Minister Arye Deri of the Shas (Ultra-Orthodox) party visited their settlement in Dimona and determined that they were not a threat but potentially a positive influence, and one that could be integrated into Israel. [Image at right] It was at this point that negotiations between Israel, the AHIJ and the U.S. began, resulting in the community being granted temporary resident status in return for a commitment to bring no further members into Israel. Normalisation gradually followed, albeit slowly, with members being granted the option of citizenship from 2009. Upon being granted permanent resident status in 2003 one member enthusiastically stated, “I guess you can call this the best moment of my life.” Whatever Israeli suspicion of the community remained was destroyed when one member, thirty-two year old Aharon Ben-Israel Elis, was killed in a terrorist attack while playing with a band at a Bat Mitzvah near Haifa, in January 2002.

Ben Ammi died in December 2014, by which time the AHIJ numbered 2,500 people in Israel and several thousand in other countries. They had established an impressive network of communities in African states, where they contribute to community, building, and health projects, largely through their African Hebrew Development Agency. Yet they are based still in Dimona, in the housing complex known as the Village of Peace (Kfar haShalom). Years since have seen the AHIJ continue to pursue their goals of changing humanity’s focus from materialism to spiritual and community concerns, focusing especially on the environmental crisis. They consider themselves the spiritual leaders of humanity who are building the Kingdom of God in the Holy Land, which will produce the wisdom from which all of humanity will enter a new way of life (Singer 2000; Michaeli 2000; Jackson 2013; Miller 2021a).

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

The fundamental belief of all Hebrew Israelite groups is that the ancient Israelites were Black Africans and that at least some African Americans are descended from them. This is the AHIJ’s position, although it has been formulated in more and less radical terms, depending on their relations with Israel. At the low points they held that all members of the normative Jewish community, and indeed even Samaritans and “white” Arabs were European transplants, descended from Medieval Crusaders. The peacebuilding efforts since the 1980s have seen them repeal such claims, instead stating that some Israelites migrated north and east, into Asia and Europe, where they seeded the Mizrachi, Sephardi, and Ashkenazi (rabbinic) communities, as well as others accepted as Jewish such as Indian and Chinese Jews. At other points they have asserted that Israelite identity is a matter of spiritual inclination, in which anyone can participate. However, they see their own community as at the forefront of the present era, and as those ordained to lead humanity out of the chaotic times into the Messianic Age.

The AHIJ consider the Hebrew Bible to be scripture, although it has usually been used in the King James translation and order, rather than that of the Jewish Tanakh. They consider the New Testament (principally the Gospels and Revelation) to be inspired recordings, but not infallible.

Ben Ammi has been the community’s principal theologian, authoring eleven books and countless lectures between 1982 and 2014. In these he set out his conception of history, truth, God, humanity and society. All of these beliefs are sourced in the Hebrew Bible, although the influence of previous generations of Hebrew Israelite and African American thought are clearly discernible.

Ammi is considered to be the Messiah, although this has a specific meaning. For the AHIJ there have been many messiahs, individuals ordained by God with the mission of bringing Israel back to the correct path. Ben Ammi is the latest in the line of such individuals, although the first since Yeshua (Jesus).

In the early stages, Ammi was apocalyptic, predicting the impending destruction of America and a cataclysmic nuclear war which would destroy the world order and allow the Kingdom of God (the AHIJ) to take its place as leaders of the world. This Messianic Age would spread peace and brotherhood across the globe, with all peoples becoming part of it. The predicted apocalypse of 1977 did not occur, leading Ammi to revise the predictions and assert that America (and the western “Euro-gentile” order) was in the process of passing away. The disappointment of these predictions is likely what led to a more conciliatory stance towards Israel, in combination with the AHIJ’s increasing lack of material resources once their fraud network was closed down in the 1980s.

Similarly, in the early sources there is a substantial amount of conspiracy theorising: the last 2,000 years of history have allegedly seen the near-complete whitewashing of Israelite nature, their replacement by Europeans, and the attempted eradication of evidence such as the Black Madonnas. In turn, by creating the pseudo-Israelite religion of Christianity, Europeans have succeeded in taking over the world and subjecting it to their violent, warlike natures. The enslavement and Christianisation of the Israelites represented the final coup-de-gras, of turning them into European zombies. The “resurrection” of Black America (drawing upon traditional African American interpretation of Ezekiel’s Valley of Dry Bones prophecy) was now taking place as they realised their true identity. The antisemitic elements, which in some members’ portrayals (though not Ben Ammi’s) saw Jews as particularly evil and directly descended from Israel’s mortal enemy Edom, demonstrate a similarity with both the Nation of Islam’s antisemitism and with that of white antisemites (Miller 2023).

Later years saw less aggressive and paranoid rhetoric, as their stability in Israel, lack of persecution, and their experience of living as part of a Jewish society, one not dominated by the specific racial tension of the U.S., allowed them to concentrate on their agenda of global uplift. While still principally concerned with Africana peoples, Ammi and the AHIJ focused their efforts on promoting their beliefs to all. These included the opening of several vegan restaurants in Israel, the U.S. and Africa, and the creation of the African Hebrew Development Agency, through which they worked in African states (principally Liberia, Ghana and Kenya) to assist with building projects, borehole drilling, preventive healthcare, environmental sustainability, and other social initiatives.

The AHIJ have been vegan since 1973, arguing that this is the correct and divinely-mandated human diet. This is based on their reading of Gen.1:29, where God gives to Adam and Eve “every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.” Veganism and a health-centred approach to life are core principles, and a central part of what they present to the world (Markowitz and Avieli 2020; Miller 2021c).

Veganism is only one part of a principled non-violent stance that has characterised the community since its inception. Drawing upon the philosophy of Martin Luther King, the AHIJ have always rejected violence as a means of achieving their goals. When the Israeli police and military surrounded them to prevent their protest march in April 1986, their response was to stand their ground and fast, thus neither continuing the march nor backing down. This event has taken mythical proportions in the AHIJ’s history, becoming known as the Day of the Show of Strength. In terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict, they consider that any use of violence by either side is wrong, but they believe that they have a responsibility to defend their homeland when it is attacked. This is what justifies the enrollment of the youth for national service.

Ammi’s theology is one of vitalism and immanence, understanding God as a spirit which does not intervene in the world directly, instead inhabiting human beings and guiding them towards righteous thoughts and actions. God’s principal nature is that of creator and life-giver, being the only source of positive generative power. Opposing God is satan (which Ammi never capitalises), the negative spiritual power which influences humans towards actions which are destructive, both of humans and of the created world generally. While righteous actions lead toward the generation of greater creative potential, those actions influenced by satan lead humans toward their ultimate death. The latter has been responsible for the Western/European world’s recent dominance, the Time of the Gentiles which is now coming to an end. This saw the enslavement of Israelites in America and the wanton destruction of the environment which makes life on earth possible (Miller 2023).

Ammi’s social philosophy is both revolutionary and conservative: he held that the present order must be destroyed completely, in order that the Kingdom of God emerge, but this Kingdom will see the return of (mostly) conservative social roles, the eradication of feminism, homosexuality, drug use, unrighteous entertainment and unrighteous lifestyles. Because God is the source of life, everything in life must be related back to the Divine in order to certify its correctness and ensure its sustainability. In particular this requires a “return” to Mosaic Law, through which God become manifest in the individual, community, and world (Miller 2023).

Ammi consistently argued that eternal life (physical immortality) was not just possible, but the natural, intended state of humanity. This would be reached gradually, lifespans increasing as the Messianic Age began. Death was introduced as a direct result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, and as the AHIJ are retracing the steps of humanity back to Eden we will undo the primal sin and once again enter the perfect existence of Eden. Eden itself is Africa, and Israel is an integral part of Africa, termed by them North-Eastern Africa.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

The community live by (their interpretation of) Mosaic Law. They keep Shabbat, meaning that from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday they fast and rest. Shabbat services with a sermon are held but these are not compulsory. As well as the biblically mandated festivals, they have a yearly celebration of New World Passover every May, commemorating their exodus from America (this joyful celebration attracts visitors from around the world). [An AHIJ festival] They are vegan and do not consume any intoxicants including tobacco, alcohol (except for especially brewed wine at festivals), and caffeine. Every member is expected to exercise three times per week. As well as spending three days every week eating only raw food, they have progressively instituted new annual dietary restrictions such as days where they consume no salt or no sugar. These are based on scientific findings about the health dangers of such substances. They wear only natural fibres, which are sewn by members of the community, and all must bear blue thread and fringes as mandated in the Bible (Deut.22:11-12, Num.15:37–40). Men wear a form of kippah and beards.

The community practice a form of polygyny which they term Divine Marriage. Herein, a man may marry up to seven wives, depending on his ability to support them. This is justified by appeal to biblical figures such as David, and some African tribal traditions. A minority of marriages are polygynous, and very few consist of more than two wives. These marriages, which go against Israeli law, are not formally recognised by the state. (Markowitz 2000)

Drawing on a long tradition within Black Hebrew Israelite groups, the AHIJ try to provide for their members’ needs internally. A large portion of the community’s food is self-farmed, and the community produces its own tofu, soya milk and soya ice cream, as well as many other food products. Clothing is produced, according to their interpretation of the biblical guidelines. Members run a recording studio to produce music and several eateries around Israel. The community in Dimona even has an internal taxi service, and many other businesses are run by members to serve the needs of the community. These businesses are presented as the best option for members (intended to keep the community’s finances circulating internally), but are also open to non-members. Whatever income is generated from these businesses, or from members’ external employment, are pooled and all members’ basic living expenses are paid centrally.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

Ben Ammi [Image at right] has been the undisputed leader of the AHIJ since 1971, and de facto leader since their formation in Chicago. When Ammi solidified his status in 1971, he installed a tiered structure with a Holy Council of twelve Princes (Nasik in Hebrew) under him. In later years these were augmented with a tier of twelve Ministers (Sar), each of whom has a specific portfolio (economics, information, agriculture, education, sports, etc.) and Crowned Brothers and Sisters (atar/atarah), the point of regular contact for members (and the only leadership tier to include females). In addition, there is the Priesthood, who look after the spiritual needs of the community as well as officiating at services, marriages, counseling, and circumcisions (Jackson 2013).

Members of the community are known as “saints”, a tradition stretching back to the first Hebrew Israelite community of William Saunders Crowdy. The family is the basic unit of the community, which has a patriarchal structure, although husbands are commanded to listen to the input of their wives when making decisions. Women are educated and often work as well as taking care of the home.

For several decades Ben Ammi was supported by two principal individuals, Shaleak Ben Yehuda (Louis A. Bryant, 1927-2003), who led the School of the Prophets, the community’s higher education and priestly training institution, and Prince (Sar) Asiel Ben Israel (Warren Brown, 1941-2022), the community’s International and American Ambassador. The latter parted with Ben Ammi after disagreements arising from Ammi’s leadership style, specifically the enlisting of members in the Israeli army and the lack of transparency around decision-making, although he remained active in the U.S.

At an organizational level, AHIJ is comprised of a number of institutions and businesses. These organizations have missions related to education, non-violence, health and environment, and organic and vegan foods. [Image at right]

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

The biggest challenges to the AHIJ are largely in the past. They managed to establish themselves in Israel, and to defuse the threat of deportation.

The AHIJ faced two decades of conflict with the Israeli state from 1970 until 1990. This saw them demonised in popular reports and targeted for deportation. Largely, these threats have now ended and they are accepted popularly and officially within the state. The achievement of their most important goal (permanent settlement in the Holy Land) has given them a renewed confidence. Indeed, they have become something of a model minority, serving in the army, creating small businesses, spending time with leaders, and receiving much positive coverage since then (Esensten  2019; Esensten website 2023). Both the AHIJ and Israel have benefited from these good relations, and they have sometimes acted as representatives of Israel (for example the Eurovision Song Contest in 1999, and at the Durban World Conference Against Racism in 2001). [Image at right] In April 2021, however, forty-six families whose legal status had not been resolved were issued with deportation orders; these were subsequently postponed after appeal, but the situation has not been resolved as of December 2022.

Ben Ammi’s death in December 2014 presented the greatest recent challenge to the AHIJ. The ensuing eight years have seen no major internal problems arise, however; the hierarchical leadership structure has helped to maintain focus and discipline, and the activities of the AHIJ continue to develop along the path already set out. What dissent there still is seems to be of little threat.

The disappointment of their literal apocalyptic predictions for 1977 led to some members leaving, but overall it was not very damaging. Indeed, as Festinger et al (1956) predict, the non-occurrence may have led to a greater assertiveness and Ben Ammi demonstrated a skillful ability to reinterpret his previous prophecies in order to make them compatible with a divergent reality, thus maintaining their veracity (Miller 2021b).

The exponential growth of other Hebrew Israelite groups in the U.S. does not seem to have impinged on the AHIJ, despite varying positions on this community; some appreciate what they have achieved, while others view them as heretical, and Ben Ammi a false Messiah.

While the Black Hebrew Israelite movement continues to grow in America, the tenets that all BHI hold in common are subject to debate. While the existence of many African tribal groups claiming descent from Israelites is martialed in support of their claims, the belief that all, most, or any African enslaved in America was of Israelite heritage is without proof. Most Hebrew Israelites use Deut.28 as a proof-text. In this chapter, the Israelites are threatened with a long list of curses, including their re-enslavement in Egypt, should they cease to observe the laws given them. For members, it is clear that they have fulfilled this biblical prophecy (America being the new Egypt), and therefore are the Israelites. For non-members this is far from certain proof. The AHIJ assert that their success in establishing themselves in the Promised Land, in the face of ongoing international efforts, is further demonstration that their claims are correct but this again fails to prove the case to those not already inclined to believe it.

While the AHIJ have succeeded in withdrawing from, and mollifying concerns around, antisemitism, concerns risk being stoked again by events and discourse in the U.S.; in 2022 Black Hebrew Israelite antisemitism made headlines. Because the AHIJ have so successfully integrated into Israel they are unlikely to face any direct pushback there, but their operations in the U.S. may find themselves tarred with the same brush as other more radical groups.

It is also worth considering the ongoing Zionist-Antizionist struggle in America and globally. Sympathy with the Palestinian struggle has been a key element of African American thought since the Black Power movement of the mid-1960s. While Black political leaders ranging from congressmen to religious leaders have near-unanimously supported the AHIJ, their association with Israel if that state’s image continues to deteriorate may cause them problems in America.

IMAGES

Image #1: Ben Carter.
Image #2: The Soul Messengers.
Image #3: A visit to the Diona settlement in 1989 by former Prime Minister Shimon Peres on his eighty-fifth birthday.
Image #4: An AHIJ festival.
Image #5: Ben Ammi.
Image #6: An AHIJ organic food store.
Image #7: A group of AHIJ members in Israel.

REFERENCES

Ammi, Ben. 1990 [1982]. God, the Black Man, and Truth. Revised Edition. Washington, DC: Communicators Press.

Black Americans to Support Israel Committee and the A. Philip Randolph Educational Fund. 1981. “Report of the First Findings of the Delegation to Israel Regarding Human Rights as they Pertain to the Original Hebrew Israelite Nation,” January 1981.

Black, Edwin. 1987. “Black Hebrews ‘Desperate’.” Atlanta Jewish Times, May 22, pp.6-8.

Dorman, Jacob S. 2013. Chosen People: The Rise of American Black Israelite Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Esensten, Andrew. 2019. “Yah’s Exemplary Soldiers: African Hebrew Israelites in the Israel Defense Forces.” Religions 10:614. Accessed from https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10110614 on 1/12/2023.

Esenten website. 2023. Accessed from https://andrewesensten.net/ahij/ on 1/12/2023.

Festinger, Leon; Henry W. Riecken; Stanley Schachter. 1956. When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

HaGadol, Prince Gavriel. 1993. The Impregnable People: An Exodus of African Americans Back to Africa. Washington, DC: Communicators Press.

Gruen, George E. 1984 The Position of the “Black Hebrews” in Israel: An Examination of the Complex Issues Involved. Special report of the International Relations Departmemnt, American Jewish Committee, June 1984.

Jackson, John L., Jr. 2013. Thin Description: Ethnography and the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Landing, James. 2002. Black Judaism: The Story of an American Movement. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Markowitz, Fran. 2000. “Millenarian Motherhood: Motives, Meanings and Practices among African Hebrew Israelite Women.” Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies & Gender Issues 3:106-38.

Markowitz, Fran/Avieli, Nir. 2020. “Food for the Body and Soul: Veganism, Righteous Male Bodies, and Culinary Redemption in the Kingdom of Yah.” Ethnography 23:181–203.

Michaeli, Ethan. 2000. “Another Exodus: The Hebrew Israelites from Chicago to Dimona.” Pp. 73-90 in Black Zion: African American Religious Encounters with Judaism, edited by Yvonne Chireau and Nathaniel Deutsch. New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Michael T. 2023. Ben Ammi Ben Israel: Black Theology, Theodicy, and Judaism in the Thought of the African Hebrew Israelite Messiah. London: Bloomsbury (forthcoming).

Miller, Michael T. 2021a. “The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem: A Borderline Case.” Pp. 28-46 in The Stranger in Early Modern and Modern Jewish Tradition, edited by Catherine Bartlett and Joachim Schlör. Leiden: Brill.

Miller, Michael T.  2021b. “The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem.” In Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian Movements, edited by James Crossley and Alastair Lockhart. Panacea Charitable Trust. Accessed from http:// http://www.cdamm.org/articles/ahij on 5 January 2023.

Miller, Michael T. 2021c. “Ben Ammi’s Adaptation of Veganism in the Theology of the African Hebrew Israelites.” Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society 7.2. Accessed from https://doi.org/10.30965/23642807-bja10019 on 5 January 2023.

Singer, Merrill. 2000. “Symbolic Identity Formation in an African American Religious Sect: The Black Hebrew Israelites.” Pp. 55-72 in Black Zion: African American Religious Encounters with Judaism, edited by Yvonne Chireau and Nathaniel Deutsch. New York: Oxford University Press.

Whitfield, Thomas. 1980. From Night to Sunlight. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

Yehuda, Shaleak Ben. 1975. Black Hebrew Israelites from America to the Promised Land: The Great International Religious Conspiracy Against the Children of the Prophets. New York: Vantage Press.

Publication Date:
7 January 2023

Share

Michael T. Miller

Michael T Miller works in Jewish Studies, specialising in Jewish mysticism and philosophy, and more recently, Black Judaism. He has published widely in these fields, including in the Journal for the Study of Judaism, and Black Theology. His monograph on the thought and theology of Ben Ammi, leader of the African Hebrew Israelites, will be published by Bloomsbury in 2023. His first monograph, The Name of God in Jewish Thought (Routledge 2016) offered a philosophical/theological examination of Jewish mystical traditions regarding the relationship of naming to identity, incorporating apocalyptic, rabbinic, and kabbalistic texts analysed through the lens of thinkers such as Rosenzweig, Benjamin, and Levinas. He taught in Jewish Studies and Philosophy at Liverpool Hope University from 2016-2019, and has been a Research Fellow at FAU Erlangen-Nurnberg, and at the Polish Institute of Advanced Studies.

Share

Urantia

URANTIA TIMELINE

1875 (June 24):  William S. Sadler was born in Spencer, Indiana.

1911 (Summer):  Sadler was introduced to the “sleeping subject” for the first time.

1924 (February 11):  The Contact Commission was created. It asked questions to angels accessed through the “sleeping subject,” resulting in “The Urantia Papers.”

1934-1935:  The Commission completed reception of the papers that will constitute The Urantia Book.

1942 (August):  An angelic message was sent to the Commission informing it to copyright The Urantia Book.

1950 (January 11):  The Urantia Foundation was created to preserve the text of The Urantia Book and distribute its teachings.

1955 (January 2):  The Urantia Brotherhood was created to organize believers of the teachings of The Urantia Book into local fraternal societies.

1955 (October 12):  The Urantia Book was first published.

1964:  Vern Grimsley started the popular “Family of God” radio broadcasts in San Francisco that shared Urantian teachings to public.

1966:  The Urantia Foundation created a policy requiring permission to quote from The Urantia Book or use the name “Urantia.”

1969 (April 26):  William S. Sadler died.

1971 (June 29):  A trademark on the name “Urantia” was registered by the Urantia Foundation.

1974:  The Urantia Foundation sent a “Confirmatory Agreement” to Urantia Societies requiring them to acknowledge the Foundation’s legal ownership of The Urantia Book and associated trademarks.

1977 (March 21):  The Urantia Foundation won a copyright lawsuit against Burton King for creating unauthorized educational materials that copied portions of The Urantia Book.

1980 (August 27):  The Urantia Foundation won a copyright lawsuit against Robert Burton for copying and distributing sections of The Urantia Book without permission.

1982:  The Center for Urantia Book Synergy (CUBS) was founded in Santa Barbara, California.

1982 (June 14):  The Urantia Foundation issued further copyright permission guidelines restricting uses of The Urantia Book by societies and individual readers.

1982 (September 23):  The Urantia Foundation won a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Urantia Society of Houston.

1983 (August 19-21):  A CUBS Conference was held in Santa Barbara despite the Urantia Foundation’s demand to approve in advance all printed materials to be used at the conference.

1983 (October 6):  Vern Grimsley announced a prediction that World War III was imminent, causing a rift between his Family of God Foundation and the Urantia Foundation.

1983 (December):  A Joint Statement by the Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood on “The Dissemination of The Urantia Book and Statement on Publicity,” was released, which suggested limiting distribution rather than engaging in aggressive outreach.

1987:  The Urantia Brotherhood suggested doing a marketing study for The Urantia Book resulting in legal threats from the Urantia Foundation.

1987:  CUBS subsidized the cost of The Urantia Book to facilitate broader sales and distribution.

1988 (April 29):  The Urantia Foundation sued CUBS for unauthorized use of the word “Urantia” in its name.

1989 (October 30):  The Urantia Foundation de-licensed the Urantia Brotherhood, which changed its name to the Fifth Epochal Fellowship (and later to the Urantia Book Fellowship).

1991:  The Urantia Foundation sued Kristin Maaherra for the unauthorized distribution of The Urantia Book on compact disc.

1992:  Reader Matthew Block began a project in which he discovered bibliographic sources for the Urantia Papers.

1995:  Well-known skeptic Martin Gardner published Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery.

1995:  A District ruling in the Maaherra case determined that the Urantia Foundation’s copyright in The Urantia Book was invalid due to a mistake made in its renewal.

1997:  An Appellate Court in Maaherra case reversed the District ruling and restored copyright in The Urantia Book to the Urantia Foundation.

1999:  The Urantia Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Michael Foundation for publishing Part IV of The Urantia Book as a separate book titled Jesus: A New Revelation.

2001 (June 20):  A jury determined in the Michael Foundation lawsuit that The Urantia Book was in the public domain.

2001 (October 14):  The Urantia Book Fellowship decided to publish its own version of The Urantia Book.  \

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

While the Urantia movement does not have a clear leader, its origins (and the origins of the movement’s central revelatory text The Urantia Book) might be credited to the Chicago-based psychiatrist, Dr. William S. Sadler. [Image at right] According to his book The Mind at Mischief, in 1911 Sadler discovered an individual with unique psychic abilities (later dubbed the “sleeping subject” or sometimes referred to as the “contact personality”) who was able to produce mysterious communications from an otherworldly source (Sadler 1929). While the process by which these communications were produced is unclear, Sadler and others within his circle were convinced of their angelic origins and sought to interrogate the sleeping subject further. They then organized these responses into a series of papers that were to become known as “The Urantia Papers.” The name Urantia is the revealed name of our planet, otherwise known as Earth.

By the mid-1920s, Sadler had organized an informal group of like-minded friends called “The Forum,” (later known as the “Contact Commission”) that discussed the papers generated by the “sleeping subject” and posed additional questions for the angelic authors to answer (Sprunger 1983; Lewis 2007). The Forum was subsequently established as a closed group with members required to sign a pledge of secrecy and tasked with the responsibility of compiling material related to the Urantia revelation throughout the 1930s and 1940s (Sprunger 1983). As early as 1942, the angels responsible for delivering the revelation guided members of the Forum to prepare for the publication of the papers. To do so, they asked that the Forum register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office and protect the name “Urantia” and its associated concentric-circle mark (three blue circles used as a symbol for Urantia) through trademark registration (Kendall 1984).

In 1950, the developing Urantia movement created its first formal structure with the Urantia Foundation, an entity tasked with the responsibility to act as “custodian of the inviolate text of The Urantia Book and [to ensure] that the book’s teachings are spread…to all people,” (Urantia Foundation). With the Urantia Foundation established as caretakers of the angelic revelation, the organization assembled and published the first edition of The Urantia Book in 1955. Subsequently, the leaders of the Urantia Foundation also created a supplementary group, the Urantia Brotherhood, which was designed to organize followers of the Urantia revelation into reader groups thereby providing a sense of community and social belonging in the absence of the trappings of traditional American Christian religion (places of worship, services, pastoral guidance, etc.) (Sadler Jr. 1958). These twinned organizations were expected to work in unity and thus provide some shape to the Urantian movement while avoiding what they considered problematic “over-organization.” Readers were thus permitted to “enjoy religious liberty in the full expression of his own personal interpretation of the truths of religious belief” (Myers 1973).

Rather than seeking to create a traditional religious structure with an identifiable prophetic leader, the Urantia Foundation instead concealed the identity of the sleeping subject responsible for bringing the revelations into existence and focused all its efforts on strategically managing the distribution of The Urantia Book itself. While not entirely obvious at the time, these efforts were supported by the Foundation’s ownership of copyright in the book, which acted as the legal foundation for its organizational authority (Lewis 2007). Because of its ownership in the text, the Foundation was able to license use of the book to reader groups thereby establishing some parameters on how reader groups should engage with, interpret, and further distribute the revelation. For those that deviated too far from sanctioned practices (for instance, by created unauthorized commentaries on the text or copying and distributing individual papers to the general public), the Foundation threatened and often engaged in legal action (Ventimiglia 2019).

The Urantia movement steadily gained momentum in the latter half of the twentieth century as exemplified by the efforts of figures like Vern Grimsley, [Image at right] a believer who began the “Family of God” radio broadcast in the San Francisco area. These broadcasts shared teachings from The Urantia Book without mentioning the book itself, a process described as “bootlegging” Urantia material into the broadcast (Grimsley 1966). However, Grimsley’s evangelizing efforts also demonstrated the risks involved in relying on people, rather than the book itself, as carriers of the Urantian revelation. Around 1983, Grimsley became increasingly concerned that World War III was immanent and that the United States would face nuclear bombardment, a prophecy based in part on his reading of passages from The Urantia Book (Grimsley 1983). Grimsley’s message precipitated widespread concern within the movement and required members of the Urantia Foundation and Brotherhood to inform readers that Grimsley’s prophecies were not a sanctioned part of Urantian teaching. By 1985, Grimsley’s influence had declined, and his Family of God organization ultimately dissolved, but his story demonstrated the risks of allowing any charismatic individual to control the direction of the Urantian movement.

Due, in part, to the Grimsley saga, the Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood jointly developed a strategy for distribution of The Urantia Book in 1983. In it, the organizations agreed to a more measured approach to distribution in opposition to those who advocated for more aggressive evangelization and circulation of the revelation (Urantia Foundation 1983). A statement outlining this approach also objected to the creation of derivative works (brochures, presentations, pamphlets, etc.) that might be created by readers and used to explain the Urantian teachings because these human interpretations were subject to error and didn’t allow the “spirit of the teachings” to be adequately expressed as it was in The Urantia Book itself. The Urantia Foundation was then able to assert authority over the community by leveraging its legal rights in The Urantia Book to control how readers discovered and engaged with the text.

Through the 1980s, some readers expressed concern about the level of control the Urantia Foundation was asserting overt the shared revelation. This concern resulted in a number of actions challenging the Foundation’s legal authority. Some reader groups like the Urantia Society of Houston refused to sign a new licensing agreement with the Foundation and as a result were sued for using the registered trademarks “Urantia” and “Urantian” without authorization (Ventimiglia 2019). A few years later, an unaffiliated organization called the Center for Urantia Book Synergy, or CUBS, challenged the Foundation’s policy of “slow growth” by buying and distributing (subsidized) copies of The Urantia Book itself, resulting in similar legal threats from the Foundation (Mullins 2000). Finally, disagreements about the book’s distribution even led to a rift between the Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood with members of the latter organization seeking to adopt advertising and marketing strategies to help popularize The Urantia Book. The Foundation responded by asserting that those actions were “not permitted within the scope of the licensing agreement” and pursuing them would result in potential revocation of the Agreement that authorized the Brotherhood to act as “agent of the Urantia Foundation in the distribution of The Urantia Book” (Myers, 1987).

These conflicts inevitably resulted in a series of lawsuits throughout the 1990s that challenged the legitimacy of the Urantia’s Foundation’s ownership claims in The Urantia Book and significantly damaged the momentum of the Urantia movement such that it has never fully recovered. While not the first copyright infringement lawsuit initiated by the Urantia Foundation, one of the most notable disputes involved a reader Kristin Maaherra who in 1991 distributed an unauthorized version of The Urantia Book on compact disc. This ensuing lawsuit revolved less around the act of infringement conducted by Maaherra, something no one contested, but rather on the legitimacy of The Urantia Book’s copyright registration. As the defense noted, the registrant Urantia Foundation was not the author of the book (the book was authored by angels)  but rather the self-appointed Trustee of the revelation. Yet, the Foundation had listed itself as the book’s author in both registration and renewal documents (Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra 1995).

While the Urantia Foundation ultimately succeeded in its lawsuit against Kristin Maaherra by arguing that, in the words of the Appellate opinion, “inadvertent mistakes on registration certificates do not invalidate a copyright,” the Foundation was less successful in a subsequent lawsuit between the Foundation and an organization called the Michael Foundation. This lawsuit involved the production of the book Jesus: A Revelation, which was simply a reprint of the fourth section of The Urantia Book that retold the life of Jesus. The Urantia Foundation considered this to be a derivative work. It further believe that this publication adulterated and mutilated the original revelation, which was only to be circulated in unabridged form. This lawsuit ultimately resulted in a jury trial in 2001, in which the jury determined that the Urantia Foundation was no longer the rightful copyright owner of The Urantia Book.  The jury instead determined that the Foundation was an assignee of the original copyright (given copyright by the original author, the “sleeping subject”) but was unable to renew it thus resulting in the book entering the public domain (Ventimiglia 2019).

As these disputes played out in the courtroom, the Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood formally ended their relationship in 1989. The Brotherhood thenceforth became an independent organization currently known as the Urantia Book Fellowship. Upon learning that The Urantia Book was in the public domain, the Fellowship published its own version of the text, a version that has continued to circulate today alongside the original Urantia Foundation version (Urantia Book Fellowship 2001).

At the same time, the Urantia movement witnessed other lesser controversies. First, a reader named Matthew Block began a project identifying the various bibliographic sources for The Urantia Book, thereby raising concerns about the authenticity and reliability of the revelation. This research suggested that some of the book might have been plagiarized, a particularly damaging accusation given the Urantia Foundation’s repeated reliance on copyright (Block 2016). Second, famous skeptic Martin Gardner took aim at the Urantia movement by publishing a book that criticized the movement, particularly the story of its angelic origins (Gardner 1995). While these incidents were minor controversies compared to the legal disputes, they nonetheless added to the embattled nature of the movement at the end of the twentieth century.

After this period of legal and intraorganizational conflict, the Urantian community settled into a period of relative stability in the twenty-first century. However, these conflicts undoubtedly halted the momentum of the movement and contributed to The Urantia Book becoming a lesser-known spiritual text. Nonetheless, both the Urantia Foundation and Urantia Book Fellowship, alongside other unaffiliated satellite organizations, continue to operate and conduct various efforts to maintain interest in The Urantia Book, including holding regular conferences,  supporting efforts to create new reader groups, and digitizing nearly all relevant historical materials. Like some other religious organizations (for instance, the Church of Scientology or Church of Christ, Scientist), the Urantia Foundation continues to maintain control over its trademarks in both the name “The Urantia Book” and the concentric circles design [Image at right] but has not engaged in active litigation over the marks since the early 2000s.

The Urantia Book’s most significant legacy may come from its legal efforts to protect an angelically authored text, as the lawsuits generated attention from legal scholars interested in the religious uses of intellectual property law (Ventimiglia 2019; Simon 2010; Cotter 2003; Silversmith and Guggenheim 2001; French 1999). In this respect, the Urantia Foundation’s attention to textual distribution as a central feature for organizing a religious movement links to a longer lineage of religions that made similar efforts to limit or strategically control the circulation of sacred or prophetic texts. In this way, The Urantia Book is both a unique twentieth-century artifact (an angelically authored text recounting an alternate narrative of human spiritual and physical evolution) while also being broadly emblematic of long-standing text-based religious traditions.

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

As a movement that prides itself on being open to all spiritual seekers, readers of The Urantia Book do not require adherence to one share one set of beliefs or doctrines. [Image at right] However, the community generally presumes that all readers understand The Urantia Book to be an angelically authored revelation that accurately reveals the true reality of the multiverse, the history of Earth (known as Urantia), and the life of Jesus, an incarnation of Christ Michael, the creator of our own local universe. This commitment to the revelatory status of the book then assumes a certain degree of allegiance to its findings despite the community’s tolerance for divergent interpretations of the text itself.

Despite the self-proclaimed openness of the Urantia movement, The Urantia Book still depicts a specific history and understanding of humanity, the universe, and the broader cosmos. The book is divided into four parts, ordered from an expansive description of the “Central and Superuniverses” and narrowing to the final part involving a unique retelling of the life of Jesus. Part I depicts the structure of the multiverse, made up of seven superuniverses with one eternal central universe at the center. The extensive descriptions of the structure of the universe provided in this first section are not to be taken as metaphorical but rather are considered a scientifically grounded description of cosmic reality and humans’ place within it. Part I also includes detailed descriptions of God (his divine nature and attributes) as well as God’s relation to humans and the universe. Part II recounts a specific history of the “Local Universe,” presumed to include over six million inhabited planets. The second part also describes the afterlife, during which humans are expected to make a pilgrimage from their home planet Urantia (also known as Earth) to Paradise, a motionless eternal isle at the center of the central universe (Belitsos 2023).

Part III provides a full chronology of the history of Urantia (Earth) including the evolution of life, emergence of humankind and various “evolutionary races,” and development of modern civilization. This part also describes how traditional religions evolved from angelic teachings, with particular attention paid to Judaism and the links between narratives and details in the Hebrew Bible (Adam and Eve, the “Lucifer Rebellion,” etc.) and the Urantian revelation. Part III also introduces the concept of the “thought adjuster,” a key term that describes the divine spark or inner voice within individuals and capable of guiding humans in accordance with the will of God. Finally, Part IV involves an extended retelling of the life of Jesus understood as an incarnation of the creator of the local universe, Michael. This part includes details from the life of Jesus including the “lost years” of his childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood (Belitsos 2023). This final part holds great significance for many readers to the extent that it has been published separately.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Readers of The Urantia Book have developed no rituals or practices beyond the act of reading the book itself whether in solitude or in local reader groups. The format for reader group meetings may vary but often involves the appointment of a moderator to lead discussion and the practice of having each attendee, in turn, read an excerpt from the group out loud to the rest of the group. The book is usually read in sequence with any reader permitted to stop the reading to discuss a sentence or passage and its meaning. These groups are important as they allow more experienced readers to explain terminology or difficult passages to novice readers and introduce them to key concepts without imposing any one interpretation on the text. Group prayer and worship may be incorporated into reader group meetings, particularly practices like holding a short moment of silence or a prayer for understanding.

Importantly, many readers of The Urantia Book are members of other organized religions and thus understand the practice of reading as supplementary to the religious rituals and practices of their primary faith group. Christians make up a large portion of readers given that the fourth part of The Urantia Book involves a retelling of the life of Jesus (squarecircles 2022).

In addition to regular local reader groups, the primary organizations involved with The Urantia Book regularly organize conferences and retreats for extended engagement with the book and with other readers around the world. Many online forums also provide a venue for readers to interact, discuss, and analyze the text. Readers are also sometimes encouraged to work toward group growth through “Service Ministry.” This type of ministry primarily involves sharing The Urantia Book with others who may be prepared to receive and appreciate the text, which in turn is understood to facilitate the growth of a healthy community of readers (Urantia Book Fellowship 2022b).

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

The structure of the Urantia movement has long been determined by the entities that control the publication and distribution of The Urantia Book rather than organize and manage followers. In this regard, the most important institution in the Urantia movement is the Urantia Foundation, established in 1950 to act as “the custodian of the inviolate text of The Urantia Book” (Urantia Foundation). The Urantia Foundation was created after the Contact Commission had assembled the Urantia Papers and was preparing to publish them as a unified book. The Urantia Foundation held the copyright in The Urantia Book and thus crafted the policies for distributing the text to readers. The Foundation is led by elected Trustees and continues to operate today as an important entity distributing the book, organizing events, and providing other educational resources.

While the Urantia Foundation was tasked with organizing the distribution of The Urantia Book, another organization, the Urantia Brotherhood, was then created in 1955 to oversee the creation of “Urantia Societies” or semi-autonomous reader groups dedicated to the Urantian revelation (Urantia Brotherhood 1982). The Brotherhood was designed to complement the Urantia Foundation by providing a sense of belonging and community to readers without replicating a hierarchical Church-like organizational structure (derisively called “Churchification” within the Urantian community) (Myers 1973). The relationship between the Urantia Foundation and the Brotherhood has historically been contentious as various reader groups sought greater autonomy particularly in terms of more aggressively marketing and distributing The Urantia Book to new readers. These tensions ultimately resulted in the Brotherhood losing permission to use the Urantia trademark controlled by the Foundation and thus was renamed the Fifth Epochal Fellowship in 1989 and later renamed again to the Urantia Book Fellowship.

The Urantia Book Fellowship continues to be one of the most important organizations uniting Urantia Book readers and local Urantia Societies. The Fellowship website operates as a key resource through which readers can find autonomous local Urantia Societies. In addition, these local societies elect representatives to attend triennial assembly that, in turn, elects a General Council that leads the Fellowship through various Committees including an Executive Committee (Urantia Book Fellowship 2022a). These Committees have created a variety of initiatives designed to keep readers active and connected including a Fellowship Outreach Program, an International Program, and an Interfaith Program (tasked with presenting the book to religious leaders in other faith traditions). The Fellowship also produces newsletters and publications that help generate a sense of community as well as guidance through the Urantia teachings.

Beyond the Urantia Foundation and Urantia Book Fellowship, a number of other smaller unaffiliated organizations exist that engage with The Urantia Book in different ways. For instance, Urantia Association International considers itself a “grass roots membership organization” that also links readers worldwide (Urantia Association International 2022). Other organizations are involved in publishing materials or collecting relevant historical documents related to the Urantia Revelation. These organizations include the Urantia Book Historical Society (which has digitized a wide range of personal correspondence, newsletters, papers, etc. related to the discovery, publication, and distribution of The Urantia Book), Urantia Book Academy, and Square Circles Publishing, an organization that also chronicles the history of the Urantia Papers with a unique focus on tracing the previous textual and religious sources of the text.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

As is evident from the history and development of the Urantia movement, the biggest challenge faced by the Urantia movement involved divergent efforts to distribute The Urantia Book and the subsequent legal battles over the book’s copyright. Rather than providing legal clarity on which organization could claim ownership and control of the book, these lawsuits (which extended over decades) had the effect of antagonizing followers and damaging any momentum the early movement might have had in spreading the Urantian revelation. However, these legal disputes only exacerbated preexisting differences within the community about how Urantia readers should be organized and how The Urantia Book was to be treated. Given that the Urantia movement explicitly chose not to organize itself as a traditional religion with an established hierarchy, distribution of the book was the central mechanism used to give some shape to the diffuse spiritual network of readers (Ventimiglia 2018). Disputes about ownership of The Urantia Book were simultaneously debates about what type of spiritual community was suitable for promoting the Urantian revelation.

While issues around copyright in The Urantia Book were ultimately resolved once the book conclusively entered the public domain in 2001, concerns around the optimal way to organize readers has persisted. Various organizations have sought to connect readers through a decentralized network of reader groups so that readers could share a sense of community and belonging. However, by design, none of these networks have sought to establish themselves as the leading organization for all Urantians and, as such, the Urantian movement lacks the strong bonds of association characteristic of a centralized religion. This approach has its benefits given that readers of The Urantia Book are not expected to abandon their prior religious identity, although assent to the book’s revelation inevitably requires an acknowledgement of the divine status of Jesus Christ and as such is clearly aligned with Christian belief.  But the cost of this approach is that the Urantian movement more closely resembles a network of study groups rather than a spiritual community bound through a mutual and deeply held commitment to shared revelation.

IMAGES

Image #1: William L. Sadler.
Image #2: Vern Grimsley.
Image #3: Urantia three-concentric-blue-circles-on-white symbol.
Image #4: The Urantia Book.

REFERENCES

Belitsos, Byron. 2023. Truths about Evil, Sin, & the Demonic: Toward an Integral Theodicy for the Twenty-First Century. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.

Block, Matthew. 2016. “Urantiabooksources.com.” Accessed from https://urantiabooksources.com/ on 20 December 2022.

Cotter, Thomas. 2003. “Gutenberg’s Legacy: Copyright, Censorship, and Religious Pluralism.” California Law Review 91:323-92.

French, Rebecca. 1999. “From Yoder to Yoda: Models of Traditional, Modern, and Postmodern Religion in U.S. Constitutional Law.” Arizona Law Review 41:49-92.

Gardner, Martin. 1995. Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Grimsley, Vern. 1983. “Letter to Clyde Bedell.” Accessed from https://ubhs.hosted-by-files.com/docs/2016/2016.1.18.52.pdf on 9 December 2022.

Grimsley, Vern. 1966. “Letter to Urantia Brotherhood.” Accessed from https://ubhs.hosted-by-files.com/docs/O/od19660830_grimsleyv_03.pdf on 9 December 2022.

Kendall, Thomas. 1984. “The Copyright and Trademarks.” Accessed from https://ubhs.hosted-by-files.com/docs/U/uc19841010_kendallt_02.pdf on 1 December 2022.

Lewis, Sarah. 2007. “The Peculiar Sleep: Receiving The Urantia Book.” Pp. 199-212 in The Invention of Sacred Tradition, edited by James Lewis and Olav Hammer. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis. Sarah. 2003. “The URANTIA Book.” Pp. 129-38 in UFO Religions, edited by Christopher Partridge. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mullins, Larry. 2000. A History of the Urantia Papers. St. Augustine, FL: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Myers, Martin. 1987. “Letter to David Elders, President Urantia Brotherhood.” Accessed from https://urantia-book.org/archive/history/doc106.htm on 16 December 2022.

Myers, Martin. 1973. “Unity, Not Uniformity.” Accessed from https://ubhs.hosted-by-files.com/docs/A/ah19730601_myersm_10.pdf on 15 November 2022.

Sadler, William S. Jr. 1958. “Functional Relationship of the Foundation and Brotherhood.” Accessed from https://urantia-book.org/archive/history/memo_1.htm on 1 December 2022.

Sadler, William S. 1929. The Mind at Mischief: Tricks and Deceptions of the Subconscious and how to Cope with Them. New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

Silversmith, Jed and Jack Achiezer Guggenheim. 2001. “Between Heaven and Earth: The Interrelationship Between Intellectual Property Rights and the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.” Alabama Law Review 52:467-527.

Simon, David. 2010. “In Search of (Maintaining) the Truth: The Use of Copyright Law by Religious Organizations.” Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 16:355-417.

Sprunger, Meredith. 1983. “The Historicity of the Urantia Book.” Accessed from https://ubhs.hosted-by-files.com/docs/H/ha1983yyyy_sprungerm_04.pdf on 22 November 2022.

Squarecircles. 2022. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed from https://squarecircles.com/frequently-asked-questions/ on 15 November 2022.

The Untold Story of Jesus: A Modern Biography from the Urantia Book. 2019. Chicago, IL: Urantia Press.

Urantia Association International. 2022. “Organizational Structure.” Accessed from https://urantia-association.org/about-uai-old/organizational-structure/ on 16 November 2022.

The Urantia Book. 1955. Chicago, IL: Urantia Foundation.

Urantia Book Fellowship. 2022a. “About the Urantia Book Fellowship.” Accessed from https://urantiabook.org/About-The-Urantia-Book-Fellowship on 15 November 2022.

Urantia Book Fellowship. 2022b. “Community: Beginning and Organizing Effective Study Groups.” Accessed from https://urantiabook.org/resources/Documents/urantia-book-study-group-guide.pdf on 15 November 2022.

Urantia Book Fellowship, 2001. “Statement from The Fellowship’s Executive Committee on Publication of The Urantia Book.” Accessed from https://urantia-book.org/archive/admin/UBPublication_Letter.htm on 20 December 2022.

Urantia Brotherhood. 1982. “Constitution of Urantia Brotherhood.” Accessed from https://ubhs.hosted-by-files.com/docs/B/bb19820627_b_37.pdf on 15 November 2022.

Urantia Foundation, 1983 “The Dissemination of The Urantia Book and Statement on Publicity.” Accessed from https://ubhs.hosted-by-files.com/docs/O/oz1983xxxx_f_21.pdf on 9 December 2022.

Urantia Foundation. n.d. “Urantia Foundation.” Accessed from https://www.urantia.org/urantia-foundation on 15 November 2022.

Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra 895 F. Supp. 1347 (D. Ariz. 1995).

Ventimiglia, Andrew. 2019. Copyrighting God: Ownership of the Sacred in American Religion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ventimiglia, Andrew. 2018. “Demanding the Angels’ Share: Intellectual Property, Emerging Religions, and the Spirit of the Work.” Cultural Critique 101:37-83.

Publication Date:
12/23/2022

 

 

 

 

Share

Community of Christ

COMMUNITY OF CHRIST TIMELINE

1830 (April 6):  Joseph Smith Jr. and five associates founded the “Church of Christ” in upstate New York.

1844 ((June 27):  Joseph Smith Jr. was assassinated in Carthage, Illinois, leading to a succession crisis in what by then was called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1860 (April 6):  Joseph Smith III was ordained in Amboy, Illinois as the prophet and president of the group that would eventually be named the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

1865 (May 4):  Ordinations of men of color was formally authorized.

1873 (December):  Polynesian saints in modern-day French Polynesia affiliated with the RLDS Church.

1895 (September 17):  The first day of classes was held at Graceland College, the RLDS-affiliated liberal arts college.

1920 (May 2):  Independence, Missouri became the headquarters for the RLDS Church.

1925 (April):  A schism took place over centralization of leadership (“Supreme Directional Control” crisis).

1960s:  A church presence was established in East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central America, East Africa, West Africa, and South America.

1966 (April 14):  The “Statement on Objectives for the Church” was issued by church leaders; its contents signaled the growing liberalization of the denomination.

1970s:  A church presence was established in Central and Southern Africa.

1984 (April):  A schism occurred over women’s ordination and general liberalization of church policies and beliefs.

1985 (November 17):  The first women were ordained in the RLDS Church.

1994 (April 17):  After four years of construction, the Temple in Independence, Missouri was formally dedicated.

2001 (April 6):  The RLDS Church changed its name to Community of Christ.

2010 (April 10):  The validity of some other Christian baptisms for individuals joining Community of Christ was recognized.

2010 (November 10):  The National Council of Churches approved the Community of Christ as a voting member.

2013 (April 21):  LGBTQ marriages and ordinations were recognized by the U.S. National Conference of Community of Christ; similar policies followed from conferences in Australia, Canada, the U.K., and Western Europe.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

Community of Christ, until 2001 known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is an American-based global denomination that traces its historical roots to Joseph Smith, Jr.’s church in the 1830s. [Image at right] With 200,000 members and a presence in sixty nations, it is the second-largest denomination within the larger family of churches descended from Joseph Smith, Jr.’s Mormon movement. Today, Community of Christ is probably best described as “an American progressive Christianity with Mormonism as an option” (Vanel 2017:91). The latter was not always so, and the church’s evolution, as well as marked divergence from other “Mormon” groups, demonstrates that founding resources within a movement do not result in inevitabilities, but possibilities.

Religious studies scholar Jan Shipps distinguished between the Mountain Saints that immigrated to Utah and the Prairie Saints that stayed in the American Midwest after Mormon founder Joseph Smith, Jr.’s 1844 assassination in Illinois. The Mountain Saints became the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Prairie Saints formed a variety of smaller groups in the subsequent decades, many of them eventually coalescing under the leadership of Joseph Smith III, the oldest son of the founding Mormon prophet (Shipps 2002). Smith III had been a reluctant leader, [Image at right] continually turning down invitations to lead groups in the 1850s until he answered the call of a miniscule Midwestern group calling itself “the New Organization” in 1860. This changed the fate of this group. During his tenure as its leader, the small group, eventually known as the RLDS Church, grew from only 300 members to well over 74,000 by Smith III’s death in 1914 (Launius 1988).

Initially, Smith III and other RLDS missionaries sought to meld together Latter Day Saints who had been followers of various claimants to Joseph Smith Jr.’s prophetic mantle, claimants like James J. Strang, Alpheus Cutler, Lyman Wight, David Whitmer, and Brigham Young. The church had remarkable success with converting members of all of the aforementioned groups, except for Young’s group, a church that was and would remain the RLDS Church’s larger, better resourced, and better known rival. While most RLDS members had been members of a variety of Mormon groups after Joseph Jr.’s death, some who affiliated with the new church had remained independent of all other prophetic claimants until they joined the RLDS Church (Launius 1988).  For example, several thousand Tahitian Latter Day Saints in the Tuamotu Islands, converts from the 1840s, chose to affiliate with the RLDS Church when its missionaries stopped in the islands on their way to Australia. The Euro-American elders who initially had evangelized the Tahitian saints had been loyal to Brigham Young, but they were long since gone, and the Tahitian saints affiliated with the RLDS elders who claimed to be the successor of Joseph Jr.’s church (as did all Latter Day Saint churches). This gave the small RLDS Church a global presence beyond its Midwestern heartland, and Tahitian RLDS saints, known locally as Sanitos, remained the largest Latter Day Saint church on the islands until well after World War II (Saura 1995).

Descended from a common church, the nineteenth century RLDS Church and LDS Church shared many doctrines and practices. They both embraced the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants as Scripture. They both had a complex church hierarchy led by a prophet and twelve apostles, and built upon a multi-tiered priesthood structure divided between the Melchisedec and Aaronic priesthoods. Both believed that they were the restoration of Christ’s new testament church and claimed to be the “one true church.” And, both believed that someday a New Jerusalem would be built by a gathered community of saints in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

However, nineteenth century RLDS were at pains to distinguish themselves from their ecclesiastic (and sometimes literal) cousins in Utah. First and foremost, RLDS opposed polygamy and many even went so far as to claim that Joseph Smith, Jr. did not originate the practice. Though historically untrue, this claim was relatively unchallenged within the RLDS Church until the 1960s. This rejection of polygamy also led to a rejection of the emergent “heaven family” among 1840s Nauvoo saints, a cornerstone of Mountain Saint doctrine and practice. Second, nineteenth-century RLDS embraced the doctrine of lineal succession in church leadership; that is, they believed that Joseph Smith III was the leader of his father’s church by right of lineal descent. This claim stood in stark contrast to Brigham Young who claimed the right to lead the Latter Day Saints by virtue of having the correct ritual power, given to him and the other apostles, he claimed, in a blessing from the early Mormon prophet (Launius 1988; Brown 2012). Third and related to its rejection of polygamy, RLDS largely rejected the temple cultus, its liturgy, theology, and rituals, which had developed in 1840s Nauvoo, Illinois and been further elaborated by Brigham Young’s church in the 1850s and beyond. RLDS believed there would be a temple in Zion someday, but their theology of temples was inchoate. For example, the RLDS Church owned and operated the earliest Mormon temple, the Kirtland Temple in Kirtland, Ohio. [Image at right] The latter structure had been dedicated by Smith III’s father in 1836. However, unlike LDS temples in Utah, RLDS treated the Kirtland Temple much like any other meeting house structure and held public worship meetings in it every Sunday (Howlett 2014).

The lack of a temple cultus had ritual and theological consequences and, consequently, established a clear break between the RLDS and their LDS cousins. For example, Smith III embraced the possibility of baptism for the dead (proxy baptisms of the deceased), but taught that there was neither a revelatory directive to do so at the time nor a rightly consecrated place. LDS in Utah, in contrast, practiced baptism for the dead with great enthusiasm, linking it to their emerging ideas about heavenly families and eternal sealings. Smith III’s elision in practicing baptism for the dead eventually led to the RLDS Church rejecting the doctrine outright, even though they acknowledged it had been taught and practiced by Joseph, Jr. Smith III also initially gave place to the doctrine of theosis (the ability of saints to become divine beings in the afterlife) but charged his elders to teach it only infrequently, as it was a “mystery of the kingdom.” In time, this meant that belief in the doctrine effectively died out in the RLDS Church as the earliest RLDS generation, formed by various doctrines in Joseph Jr.’s Nauvoo, died, too. Some of the latter also believed in baptism for the dead. In both cases, Smith III chose to outwait his opponents on doctrinal issues rather than force a church controversy. The rejection of theosis, in particular, had another effect. RLDS were functionally trinitarian Christians, even if they did not proclaim themselves as such until the late twentieth century (Launius 1988).

One area where Smith III did not outwait his opponents was on the subject of the ordination of men of African descent. By the 1860s, Brigham Young, the leader of the LDS Church in Utah, had instantiated a doctrine that banned the ordination of any men of African descent. Some early texts from Joseph Smith, Jr., like a few passages from the Book of Abraham, seemed to support Young’s reasoning, while actual practice in Smith Jr’s church did not (several men of African descent had been ordained). Early RLDS leaders themselves were divided on the issue. To break the division, Smith III issued a revelation in May 1865 authorizing the ordination of men of African descent. By the 1870s, several African American RLDS priests were evangelizing African American communities in the North and South, though RLDS missionaries never did make many conversions among African Americans (Scherer 2000).

Around the issue of women’s participation in the church, Smith III equivocated on several issues. Initially, he opposed the right of women to be voting delegates at church conferences, but conceded when the church’s General Conference itself overruled him. By the 1880s, some church members began to support women’s ordination. Smith III largely stayed out of the debate, but, by 1905, he and other church leaders issued a statement saying that there was no way to ordain women to the priesthood unless the church received a revelation authorizing it. As there was no revelation forthcoming, women were not ordained during his tenure (Ross, Howlett, and Kruse 2022).

Smith III attempted to build a church community that avoided what he saw as some of the excesses of his father’s church, particularly around its militancy, theocracy, and massive communitarian efforts. Smith III, who had memories of the uniformed Mormon defense force in Nauvoo led by his father, steered his church clear of any such associations. The motto of “peace” adorned the official church seal in 1871, [Image at right] and no RLDS community ever formed a militia like Nauvoo’s militia. Second,  though his authority was from a decidedly undemoractic source (ritual imposition and lineal descent), Smith III embraced the democratic ethos of the saints who came together to form the RLDS Church. This meant that all major church decisions were voted upon by elected delegates to an annual church conference, much like other Protestant groups of the era. The conference could even overrule Smith III, as it did on several occasions. Finally, Smith III embraced the general idea of a gathered communitarian Mormon community (known as Zion) that would someday be built in Independence, Missouri. Weary of the communitarian failures he had lived through as a child, he advocated for a course of gradualism. Only a gradual moral perfection of the saints could effectuate the conditions to build an actual physical community of Zion, he taught. In the meantime, his followers should live among other people, showing through their daily conduct what “Zion” could be (Launius 1996). In practice, this meant that the RLDS church was largely a church of congregations, a garden variety sect among others in the soil of America. As such, the RLDS Church was not a church with the soul of a nation, like the Utah-based LDS Church that held sway over a massive part of the intermountain American West.

Even so, a small group of RLDS built a town on the border of Iowa and Missouri, known as Lamoni. The community had a limited number of collectively owned enterprises, such as a mill, grocery store, and hardware store (Launius 1984). In 1895, an officially affiliated liberal arts college was established there, Graceland College, that paradoxically claimed it was a “non-sectarian institution.” Lamoni became the headquarters of the church in 1880 when Smith III moved there, and, at the very end of his life, Smith III moved his family to join a growing community of RLDS in Independence, Missouri, the promised site for the Latter Day Saint New Jerusalem (Launius 1988).

The founding of a church-owned liberal arts college marked the RLDS Church’s quest for larger legitimacy with their neighbors. This in part explains Smith III’s attendance and talk at Parliament of World Religions (1893) and the church’s application to join the Federal Council of Churches in 1908 (the group denied the RLDS request) (Launius 1988; Scherer 2013). However, the RLDS Church was not simply asking for legitimacy; they were also entering an age in which many church members believed they needed more educational training and specialized knowledge to accomplish the church’s mission in the world.

When Smith III died in 1914, his handpicked successor and oldest son, Frederick Madison Smith [Image at right] took as the RLDS saints’ task to “Zionize the Church and evangelize the world.”  By the late nineteenth century, the latter goal had resulted in a modest church presence in places like Germany, Palestine, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the Hawaiian Islands (Scherer 2013). In an age of Protestant missions, Smith himself only half-heartedly pursued global evangelism. He pursued his second goal for RLDS saints, “Zionize the church,” with the obsession of a reformer. By “Zionize the church,” Smith meant creating the conditions necessary for the kingdom of God on earth. He attempted to do so through very modern means:  centralization of church processes, the professionalization of church employees, and the specialization of church bureaucrats. While this did not necessarily mean seminary training for priesthood, it did mean that the highest church leaders pursued graduate degrees in education and social science fields. Smith himself earned an MA in sociology from the University of Kansas and PhD in social psychology from Clark University where he studied under G. Stanley Hall. Church leaders like Smith began to metabolize liberal Protestant theology, especially the Social Gospel theology of their age, a trend that would be magnified many times over in the second half of the twentieth century (Howlett 2007).

No issue created more controversy in the early twentieth century RLDS Church than the centralization of church power. Early in his presidency, Smith clashed with members of various church leadership groups and he created a crisis in 1925 when he gave a revelation stating that the “supreme directional control” for the church in administrative matters lay with the First Presidency, rather than dispersed among other groups. The fallout was immediate. His brother (and future successor) and the entire Presiding Bishopric (the financial officers for the church) resigned in protest, several apostles resigned, and several thousand RLDS members began meeting with other “Prairie Saint” denominations. Smith saw himself as a modern executive officer, but RLDS dissenters, including his brother, felt that ecclesiastical power should be distributed across the church rather than concentrated in one office (Mulliken 1991).

Stung with rejection, Smith nonetheless pursued ambitious institution-building projects, such as creating multiple church departments, like recreation and youth departments; modernizing and expanding an RLDS hospital and retirement homes; building a 5,000-seat auditorium and headquarters facility; and quasi-socialist community-building experiments through cooperative farms and stores, as well as organizations that made low-interest loans so that families could own homes. These projects were all manifestations of Smith’s era in which RLDS members melded Protestant Social Gospel ideals with early Mormon notions of cooperative community. While RLDS members tended to take inspiration from less radical parts of the Protestant Social Gospel movement, RLDS projects could help inspire truly radical action, such as the career of labor organizer John L. Lewis. The latter was raised in a coal-mining RLDS family and helped run a collectively-owned RLDS grocery store in Iowa before turning his attention to union organizing (Howlett 2007).

With the onset of the Great Depression and a massive church debt due to Smith’s building campaign, Smith’s programs to “Zionize the church” faltered as funds dried up and the church entered a period of financial retrenchment. The cooperative farms, for example, ended after only operating for a few years, as the denomination had to mortgage the land. However, the church bureaucracy that Smith built, along with expectations for specialized, professional employees, made the organization into a modern American denomination. Furthermore, the notion of a “social application” of “the restored gospel” would push the church in a more socially progressive direction in subsequent generations (Howlett 2007).

In the post-World War II era, the RLDS Church rode the coattails of America’s Cold War empire to establish new congregations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Like their LDS counterparts, RLDS members, serving in the US military, established nascent communities wherever they were stationed, sometimes evangelizing local populations in places like South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. Yet, RLDS expansion, particularly into Asia, went hand in hand with a new evaluation of the purpose of the church and the notion of “missions” themselves. Like mainline Protestants of an earlier generation, RLDS leaders in Asia (most of whom were initially Americans) argued that the church needed to “indigenize” itself in those places. Rather than recreate the beliefs and structures of the (American) “restored gospel” in Asia, they argued that the church should grow in culturally appropriate ways that allowed for local autonomy and respect for local traditions (Howlett 2022). Consequently, local indigenous leaders outside of North America were given power over the shape of the churches in their regions (except for church finances). In practice, this meant that RLDS groups mirrored more the practices of dominant Christian groups in their regions (Canadian Baptists in the highlands of Odisha, India, or Pentecostal churches in the River State of Nigeria) rather than the practices of the mostly Anglophone Mormon-heritage regions of the RLDS Church in North America and Western Europe (Howlett 2020; Hurlbut 2019). Added to this, by the 1970s, RLDS leaders began to increasingly engage in humanitarian missions rather than evangelizing missions. The officially sanctioned RLDS NGOs that emerged from this time were community organizing NGOs in the Philippines that drew their inspiration from Saul Alinksy and ecumenical Filipino community organizing groups, pushing the denomination itself in a new liberalizing direction (Bolton 2023).

In this same era, RLDS leaders and headquarters staff began to attend mainline Protestant seminaries for graduate degrees. The effects of this could be seen in church curriculum, conference resolutions, books published with the official church imprint, and, most importantly, church policies. Such materials and policies reflected a generative conversation with mainline Protestant theology and RLDS traditions. It also led to a questioning of earlier theological assumptions. For example, progressive leaders questioned the relevance of the Book of Mormon or suggested that it should be studied through historical critical means. They redefined their denomination as a true church, but not “the one true church,” as previous generations of RLDS leaders had. And, they began to question why groups, like women, and later, queer folks, were excluded from ordination in the RLDS priesthood (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

These last two issues, the ordination of women and queer folks, created sustained controversies within the RLDS Church in the 1970s -1980s and 2000s – early 2010s respectively. Both issues garnered considerable, organized grassroots support and organized opposition. For example, RLDS feminist consciousness-raising groups in the 1970s pushed church leaders to reexamine the hierarchical nature of priesthood and who it excluded. When RLDS Prophet Wallace B. Smith [Image at right] in April 1984 issued a revelation calling for the ordination of women, he did so after years of worshiping with and listening to RLDS feminists. Smith’s revelation, too, galvanized conservative opposition and resulted in the largest schism in the church’s history. Up to twenty-five percent of the North American membership seceded from the denomination and started independent congregations called “Restoration branches,” some of which evolved into small denominations or loosely affiliated conferences (Ross, Howlett, and Kruse 2022). On a much smaller scale than the 1980s schism, some individuals or congregations in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., and Western Europe left the denomination after regional conferences in these respective places approved the ordination of queer individuals and queer marriages. Furthermore, the Global South Community of Christ also by and large opposed queer ordinations and marriages, though this opposition was not universal. For instance, mahu individuals in French Polynesia traditionally have served in the priesthood, and this without any policy statements or changes. (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

Two material manifestations of the church epitomize its rapid late-twentieth-century liberalization, a new official denominational name and a massive new building at church headquarters. On April 6, 2001, the RLDS Church officially changed its name to Community of Christ (Scherer 2016). The name itself seemed to channel the liberalizing currents of its age, such as faith in community organizing, the valorization of relationality, and, perhaps, neoliberal corporate rebranding. Nonetheless, it also recalled the simplicity of the first name for the denomination, “the Church of Christ.” The Temple, [Image at right] dedicated in 1994 and costing $60,000,000, is a soaring, three-hundred-foot tall spiral structure that houses headquarters offices, a museum and archives, a library, the denominational seminary, and a devotional “worshiper’s path” leading to 1,600-seat sanctuary. Consecrated to “the pursuit of peace,” the Temple reflects the denomination’s ecumenical-Protestant inflections  and incorporates new traditions. For example, a daily “prayer for peace” service is held at the Temple at 1 p.m., the only regular ritual practice done in the Temple outside of occasional worship services during conferences. Yet, the Temple is also shaped by the imprint of the past. The Temple itself sits on part of the original sixty-four-acre plot that Joseph Smith, Jr. dedicated in 1831 for a temple complex in his hoped-for earthly New Jerusalem community of “Zion.” So, while the Temple itself functions much like an Episcopal cathedral, it also carries with it the traces of the Mormon past, an apt way of summarizing the shape of Community of Christ in the early twenty-first century (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

While Community of Christ is not officially a creedal church, it has created various statements, including a current “Basic Beliefs” statement that it frames for its members “not as the last word, but as an open invitation to all to embark on the adventure of discipleship” (Chvala-Smith 2020:!). This follows a long line of other statements formed by the church, dating back to the nineteenth century. In what follows, I draw upon these statements to explain Community of Christ doctrines and beliefs through six key theological terms: God, revelation, scripture, salvation, reign of God/Zion, eternal life.

Community of Christ is trinitarian, defining the one living God as a community of three persons.” Since the 1980s, official church documents have used inclusive language for God, de-emphasizing gendered, male language for God and reflecting trends in other progressive Christian groups. Reflecting historic formulations in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed, the church affirms Jesus as fully divine and fully human, as well as Jesus’s death and resurrection. No official position articulates a particular theology of Jesus’ atonement, and this can greatly vary in the global Community of Christ, from evangelically-influenced notions of substitutionary atonement present in many Global South Community of Christ groups to progressive-influenced notions of Jesus as moral exemplar. The third member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit is affirmed in classical terms as “giver of life,” “true Wisdom,” and “true God.” As the most recent Basic Beliefs statement affirms, “we find love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, or self-control, there the Holy Spirit is working” (Chvala-Smith 2020).

Like other progressive American Christian communities, Community of Christ affirms that God still speaks. As the Basic Beliefs statement affirms, “The church is called to listen together for what the Spirit is saying and then faithfully respond” (Chvala-Smith 2020). While this statement fits well with other mainline Protestant theologies, Community of Christ adds a unique twist to this; it adds statements given by its prophet and approved by its World Conference to its book of Doctrine and Covenants, a text in its canon of Scripture.

Officially, Community of Christ recognizes three texts as scripture – the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Scripture itself is seen as “writing inspired by God’s Spirit and accepted by the church as the normative expression of its identity, message, and mission.” This is not to say that Community of Christ officially embraces Scriptural literalism or thinks Scripture is inspired word for word from God. While individual members may embrace both, the denomination’s official statement on Scripture states, “Scripture is vital and essential to the church, but not because it is inerrant (in the sense that every detail is historically or scientifically correct).” Rather, Scripture keeps Community of Christ “anchored in revelation, in promoting faith in Christ, and in nurturing the life of discipleship.” Furthermore, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants do not supplant the Bible. Rather, they are affirmed as Scripture “because they confirm its message that Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God.” No one in Community of Christ is required to use either the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants as Scripture, and the church assiduously avoids taking a position on the historicity of the Book of Mormon (Chvala-Smith 2020).

Today, across the church, the Bible is overwhelming the primary scriptural text used. In what we might call “Mormon heritage” regions of the church (North America, Western Europe, and French Polynesia), the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants may or may not be used in services. In parts of the church outside these regions, use of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants is virtually unheard (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

Community of Christ by and large uses the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible in its English-speaking congregations. Since the 1980s, this text has supplanted what Community of Christ once called the “Inspired Version,” the textual revision of the Bible undertaken and partially completed by Joseph Smith, Jr. and Sydney Rigdon in the 1830s. With Community of Christ’s alignment with mainstream Protestant Christianity, use of the Inspired Version has significantly declined among average church members in North America. Finally, there is no standard version of the Bible used in the French-speaking or Spanish-speaking Community of Christ, the two most numerous linguistic groups in the church outside of the Anglophone part of the church (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

Community of Christ talks about salvation as “healing for individuals, human societies, and all of creation.” This notion of a wholistic salvation that goes beyond human persons has its roots in the nineteenth century, but has been significantly influenced by late-twentieth-century liberationist theologies, too (Chvala-Smith 2020).

For much of its history, Community of Christ emphasized a social theology of the Kingdom of God they termed “Zion.” Until the 1960s, Zion for Community of Christ was a literal community of the New Jerusalem that they aspired to build in Jackson County, Missouri, a community where there would be no poor, where people would live in holiness, and where people would find unity and peace in God. In the late twentieth century, Zion became less a “lighthouse” and more a “leaven,” to use the terms of a 1970s RLDS theologian. That is, Zion became synonymous with a divine force for good in the world that was decentered from any one geographical place, like the diffuse leaven in the loaf of bread that allowed it to grow in Jesus’s gospel parable. Zion also became synonymous with peace and justice. The term “reign of God” is now used more often than the term Zion, though Zion is still used to articulate Community of Christ’s “commitment to herald God’s peaceable kingdom on Earth by forming Christ-centered communities in families, congregations, neighborhoods, cities, and throughout the world.” Once again, Zion, a heritage term from the Joseph Smith era, is more commonly used in the Restoration-heritage regions of Community of Christ rather than in other places (Griffiths and Bolton 2022).

Classic RLDS beliefs from the early twentieth century articulated complex afterlife in three kingdoms of glory (the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial) that humans could inherit after death. This reading of the afterlife was buoyed by prooftexts from the Bible and RLDS scripture and often depicted in preaching charts used in evangelism. Notably, hell was seen as a temporary place, the “prison house” in older RLDS speak. Post-1960s, this view of the afterlife has severely declined in Community of Christ. Officially, Community of Christ affirms that “in Christ, God’s love finally will overcome all that demeans and degrades the creation, even death itself.” While not a full statement of universal salvation, many members in the Mormon heritage part of the church take it as such. Again, this view is much closer to mainline Protestant understandings of eternal life than it is the mid-twentieth-century preaching charts used by RLDS elders. Nonetheless, the very plurality of heavens and temporariness of hell in older RLDS thought gestured toward a limited universalism that many Community of Christ members now embrace as a full universalism (Chvala-Smith 2020; Griffiths and Bolton 2022).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Today, Community of Christ recognizes eight rites that it defines as “sacraments.” While language around these rites has changed (before the 1960s, they were called “ordinances”), their basic form and number has remained the same. These rites are baptism, communion (the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist), confirmation, blessing of children, ordination, laying on of hands for the sick, marriage, and evangelist blessing (called “patriarchal blessing” in the era before women’s ordination).

Community of Christ practices what other traditions call “believer’s baptism,” or baptism at a minimum age of eight years old. It also recognizes the baptisms of other traditions if a person has been baptized at age eight or older and baptized under the classic trinitarian formula (“in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”). Such persons do not need to be rebaptized in Community of Christ. There is still ongoing debate as to whether infant baptisms should be recognized, too. All of this is a shift from pre-1960s doctrinal positions in Community of Christ that claimed exclusive sacramental power and mandated rebaptism for any new member (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

Communion or the Lord’s Supper occurs by tradition once a month in Community of Christ congregations, though there is no policy preventing it from happening more frequently. Communion, too, is open to any baptized Christian, regardless of their affiliation. Communion elements may consist of bread and grape juice (wine), but can be adapted to local cultural practices (i.e. coconut milk) or dietary needs (i.e. gluten-free bread). The communion ceremony itself is relatively simple, consisting of the congregation kneeling down as a priest or elder reads a liturgical blessing on the bread and wine, or a combined blessing on both. The words to these blessings are drawn from the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10), one of the few places where the Book of Mormon text still directly influences Community of Christ practice. An alternative, lightly modernized version of these prayers has been approved, too, and uses more gender-neutral language for God. Priests and elders take the blessed communion elements and directly serve congregants, though this last step is more tradition than mandate. In 2019, Community of Christ approved guidelines for the online celebration of the Lord’s Supper, a move that made its celebration during the COVID pandemic easier in the following year. Finally, congregations outside of North America may or may not follow these outlines for administering communion, offering alternative prayers or procedures that reflect local standards (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

Confirmation in Community of Christ traditionally happens after baptism, sometimes immediately after baptism. This rite recognizes a person as a full member of the denomination and traditionally was seen as bestowing the gift of the Holy Spirit on a person. Today, the denomination teaches that confirmation “seeks God’s blessing to help new members grow in their covenant and generously share their giftedness in support of the church’s mission.” Confirmation also provides a rite for those wishing to join Community of Christ from another Christian denomination. Instead of being rebaptized, they are confirmed as a member of Community of Christ. The ceremony itself consists of two elders laying on their hands and offering an extemporaneous prayer that recognizes the confirmee’s entrance into the denomination and blessing them in their further discipleship (Bolton and Gardner 2022).

The blessing of children is in some ways the functional equivalent of infant baptism in other Christian traditions. It allows parents to present their child to their congregation for an official ritual that welcomes the child into a community. Two elders, chosen by the child’s parents or guardians, lay on hands to bless the child and offer an extemporaneous prayer of blessing. The origin of this rite can be traced to the earliest days of the Latter Day Saint movement and is probably influenced by Baptist practices of the same era. In practice, Community of Christ’s blessing of children can include children from infancy through age seven (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

Ordination is part of a process that begins when an adult member is “called” to the priesthood by their local pastor or a regional administrator. The person discerns whether or not to accept this call. If they accept, the local congregation votes on the call. If the “call” is to an office of elder or above, a regional conference (called a “Mission Center” conference) votes on it. The candidate then takes three short courses that cover topics like the duties of their office, the responsible use of scripture and preaching, and ethical and legal obligations that they have as a minister. Finally, if approved, the candidate is ordained by the laying on of hands in a public ceremony in which at least two ordained members offer extemporaneous prayers conferring the office upon the candidate. Most of those who are ordained are bi-vocational ministers who will serve in their local congregations. While ordination is not universal for adults in Community of Christ, the majority of active, contributing men and women are called to the priesthood and ordained at some point in their life. More about the priesthood structure is detailed in a section below. Since 1984, women may be ordained in Community of Christ. Since 2013, LGBTQ may be ordained in Community of Christ in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., and Western Europe (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

The laying on of hands for the sick is a sacrament that grows out of the sacramental imagination of early Latter Day Saints who read the Bible in a typological fashion. Based upon an imitatio reading of James 5:14, these saints authorized elders to lay on hands, anoint the sick with oil, and offer a prayer of healing for them. This tradition continues in Community of Christ and is a sacrament that people might ask for in times of existential crisis, as well as for physical ailments. In colloquial terms, it is called “administration” (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

Marriage is also deemed a sacrament in Community of Christ. Priests, elders, and high priests are all authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies. Since 2013, members of these priesthood offices in the U.S., Canada, Australia, U.K., and Western Europe may conduct marriage ceremonies for LGBTQ individuals where legal.

Evangelical blessings serve as the one unique sacrament compared with other non-Latter Day Saint traditions. Originating in the 1830s and then referred to as a “patriarchal blessing,” the sacrament grew out of a desire for fathers to bless their children before their deaths and quickly evolved into a ceremony in which a “father for the church” or ordained “patriarch” blessed a church member. In the ceremony, the patriarch would lay their hands upon a church member in a public ceremony and offer an extemporaneous blessing upon them, sometimes prophesying about the individual’s future or sealing powers upon them. This prayer was recorded by a scribe and a copy of it was given to the blessed individual. Today, the ceremony has gone from a public ceremony to an intimate, private ritual in which an evangelist (men and women may serve in the office) offers a prayer of blessing on a young adult that is recorded and later given to them, all of this usually occurring in a private ceremony attended by the evangelist, the person blessed, and one other person. The prayer is meant to offer encouragement and guidance to the blessed person, but evangelists no longer prophecy or seal charismatic blessings upon a person. In addition, whereas patriarchal blessings were only given to a person once in their life, Community of Christ members may ask evangelists for blessings at any time in their life, particularly around times of transition (Howlett and Duffy 2017; Bolton and Gardner 2022).

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

Community of Christ has synthesized the two great polity traditions of American denominational Christianity, polity by decision of an episcopacy and polity by decision of conference delegates. For the former, the Community of Christ has a complex priesthood structure that ranges from deacons to the office of “prophet, seer, and revelator” for the denomination’s president. This is part and parcel of the denomination’s heritage in Joseph Smith’s earliest church and his two priesthood orders, containing the offices of deacon, teacher, and priest (the Aaronic Priesthood) and elder, high priest, seventy, apostle, and president of the high priesthood (the Melchisidec Priesthood). In practice, this means that Aaronic priesthood (all of whom are adults) have authority in their local congregations. Melchisidec priesthood may do the same, but some also have regional or church-wide authority, too. At the top of this church leadership structure is the First Presidency (the church’s “prophet” and two counselors), the Council of Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric (the church’s highest financial officers). At times, these three groups meet together to make administrative policies in a “Joint High Council.” Ultimately, the First Presidency serves as the executive leaders of the denomination, while apostles serve as regional leaders (Griffiths and Bolton 2022).

The very fact that the church’s highest leadership body is referred to as a “presidency” gestures towards the American origins of Community of Christ and its simultaneously sacerdotal and democratic impulses. The latter impulses are most fully expressed through the World Conference, a triennial meeting of elected delegates that approves all major policies in Community of Christ. Any baptized and confirmed member of Community of Christ may serve as a delegate to the World Conference if they are elected by their regional conference to do so. Legislation at World Conferences may range from official statements on social justice issues to authorization for new administrative divisions. Even revelations given by the church Prophet must be approved by the World Conference before they are included in the Community of Christ’s Doctrine and Covenants. The latter does not always attain pro forma approval, too. Significant dissent voiced by conference delegates has resulted in past prophets pulling or modifying such documents (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

More recently, regional conferences, rather than the World Conference, approved policies around LGBTQ inclusion that had the potential to split the global denomination if approved for the entire denomination. This reversed the approach used to approve women’s ordination in the 1980s, one done with a revelation from the Prophet and voted on by the World Conference with significant dissent. Thus, significant power has been granted by Community of Christ to regional units and conferences on issues that would have been decided by the denomination’s World Conference in the past (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Community of Christ faces both demographic and monetary challenges for the future. Since the 1980s, the denomination has had decline in both areas after peaking in the 1970s. Demographic growth outside of North America in the Global South, once touted as a major growth area, has proved ephemeral in the recent past as budgetary cuts for global Community of Christ ministers has resulted in congregations leaving as their ministers seek affiliation and income from other denominations. Within North America, Community of Christ is a graying, but not growing denomination. In 2010, an internal report by the church’s Presiding Bishopric, presented at the World Conference, revealed that the average age of a financially contributing member to Community of Christ was sixty-nine, a full ten years older than the average age of financially-contributing mainline Protestant church members. Deep cuts of the church’s administrative structure and programming have followed (Howlett 2013).

One exception to the aforementioned trends has been the influx of so-called “Latter Day Seekers,” those former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have affiliated with Community of Christ primarily due to its social justice stances and full inclusion of women and LGBTQ individuals in leadership (at least within the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Western Europe). Most of these new Community of Christ members are in their thirties and forties and have families. Whether they will offset the trend towards a graying Community of Christ remains to be seen (Howlett and Duffy 2017).

Theologically, Community of Christ still has to work out whether it will join the cadre of historic peace churches or remain adjacent to the so-called mainline Protestants and groups in the World Council of Churches who pursue a policy of “just peace.” The latter seems most likely, as the number of pacifists in Community of Christ remains small, and the denomination endorses military chaplains. Future World Conferences will decide this.

To what extent will the heritage of the Joseph Smith-era inform Community of Christ in the future? The ecclesiastical structures that Smith birthed (the priesthoods and the administrative hierarchy) live on in Community of Christ. Arguably, the Smith-era ingredients of community-building and just economic relationships, as encapsulated by Smith’s Zion narratives, shape Community of Christ’s ecumenical work and peace and justice advocacy in the present (Griffiths and Bolton 2022). Yet, are these elements catalysts or reagents, the former retaining its identity in a reaction and the latter being used up in it?

IMAGES

Image #1: Joseph Smith, Jr.
Image #2: Joseph Smith III.
Image #3: The Mormon temple, the Kirtland Temple in Kirtland, Ohio.
Image #4: The RLDS peace logo.
Image #5: Frederick Madison Smith.
Image #6: Wallace B. Smith
Image #7: The Community of Christ Temple in Independence, Missouri.

REFERENCES

Bolton, Matthew. 2023. From Militarized Mission to Radical Resistance: The Post-Colonial Transformations of Charles D. Neff. Independence, Missouri: John Whitmer Books.

Bolton, Andrew and Jane Gardner. 2022. Sacraments: Symbol, Meaning & Discipleship. Independence, Missouri: Herald House.

Brown, Samuel Morris. 2012. In Heaven as it is On Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chvala-Smith, Anthony. 2020. Exploring Basic Beliefs in Community of Christ: A Commentary. Independence, Missouri: Herald House.

Griffiths, Casey Paul and Andrew Bolton, eds. 2022. Restorations: Scholars in Dialogue from Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU and John Whitmer Books.

Howlett, David J. 2022. “The RLDS Church, Global Denominations, and Globalization: Why the Study of Denominations Still Matters.” Journal of Mormon History 48:1–14.

Howlett, David J. 2020. “Why Denominations Can Climb Hills: RLDS Conversions in Highland Tribal India and Midwestern America, 1964-2001.” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 89:633-58.

Howlett, David J. 2014. Kirtland Temple: The Biography of a Shared Mormon Sacred Space. University of Illinois Press.

Howlett, David J. 2013. “ ‘We’re Not the Mormons’: Alterity and Church History in the Community of Christ.” Fides et Historia 45:101-08.

Howlett, David J. 2007. “The Death and Resurrection of the RLDS Zion: A Case Study in ‘Failed Prophecy’.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40:112-31.

Howlett, David J. and John-Charles Duffy. 2017. Mormonism: The Basics. New York: Routledge.

Hurlbut, D. Dmitri. 2019. “Gobert Edet and the Entry of the RLDS Church into Southeastern Nigeria, 1962-1966.” Journal of Mormon History 45:81-104.

Launius, Roger D. 1996. “The Awesome Responsibility: Joseph Smith III and the Nauvoo Experience.” Pp. 231-50 in Kingdom on the Mississippi Revisited: Nauvoo in Mormon History, edited by Roger D. Launius and John E. Halwas. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Launius, Roger D. 1988.  Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Launius, Roger D. 1984. “The Mormon Quest for a Perfect Society at Lamoni, Iowa, 1879-1890.” Annals of Iowa 47:325-

Mulliken, Kenneth R. “The Supreme Directional Control Controversy: Theocracy Versus Democracy in the Reorganized Church, 1915-1925.” Pp. 91-124 in Let Contention Cease: The Dynamics of Dissent in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, edited by Roger D. Launius and W. B. “Pat” Spillman. Independence: Graceland/Park Press.

Ross, Nancy, David Howlett and Zoe Kruse. 2022. “The Women’s Ordination Movement in the RLDS Church: Historical and Sociological Perspectives.” Mormon Studies Review 9:15-26.

Saura, Bruno. 1995. Les Sanitos (Te Mau Sanito). Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House.

Scherer, Mark A. 2016. The Journey of a People: The Era of Worldwide Community, 1946-2015. Independence, MO: Community of Christ Seminary Press.

Scherer, Mark A. 2013. The Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 1844 to 1946. Independence, MO: Community of Christ Seminary Press.

Scherer, Mark A. 2000. “From Reaction to Proaction?: African-Americans in the History of the Reorganized Church.” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 20:111-32.

Shipps, Jan. 2002. “How Mormon is Community of Christ?” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 22 (Nauvoo Conference Special Edition):195-204.

Vanel, Chrystal. 2017. “Community of Christ: An American Progressive Christianity, With Mormonism as an Option.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 50:39-72.

Publication Date:
11 December 2022

Share