HUTTERITES TIMELINE

1528 A group of Anabaptists in Moravia separated themselves by taking a commitment to communal life .

1529 Jacob Hutter joined the communal group of Anabaptists

1533 Hutter emerged as the leader of the group and had such an influence on the movement that it took his name as the Hutterites.

1535 Hutter was arrested and killed in Austria.

1535-1622 The Hutterite movement entered a period of prosperity growing from 20,000 members to 30,000 members and developing skills in ceramic work and medical practice.

1622 The Hutterites were expelled from Moravia forcing the Hutterite movement to scatter among various countries.

1770 The scattered groups of Hutterites rejoined and moved to Russia.

1871 The Russia government withdrew exemption of military duty originally granted to the Hutterites in 1770.

1874 The Hutterites moved to the United States settling in South Dakota

1914-1918 The Hutterites moved to Canada as World War I brought persecution of German-speaking people and Pacifists within U.S. culture.

1929-1940 During the Great Depression the U.S. government invited the Hutterites back to their former colony locations.

1940-present Hutterite colonies can be found in the states of North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Washington, Oregon in the U.S. and in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

The Anabaptists constituted the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation and began to appear in Germany and Switzerland in the early 1520s. The direct predecessors of the Hutterites were Anabaptists in Zurich, Switzerland, who advocated the separation of church and state, adult baptism, adoption of a disciplined way of life, separation from nonbelievers, and pacifism. They were persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants, and in fleeing from persecution they spread to many locations in Europe. Moravia, which had become relatively diverse religiously as a result of the rise of several pre-Protestant religious movements, became a haven for the Anabaptists, and it was there that the Hutterites emerged as a separate body. In 1528, their chronicle records, the Anabaptists who would become the Hutterites committed themselves to community of goods, giving all personal possessions and money to the group as a whole. Complete community of goods remains one of the distinctive features of Hutterite life today.

Jacob Hutter, born in Moos, South Tyrol (now Italy), appeared among these believers in 1529. He had previously been an Anabaptist leader in the Tyrol, where persecution was intense, and he and his followers joined the Moravian band. In 1533, he emerged as the decisive leader of the group, which under his direction created the regulations and structures that gave Hutterism its distinctive character. His tenure as leader was fairly short, however. In 1535 he was arrested in Austria, and early the following year was tortured and executed.

Despite his death, the movement soon entered a period of relative prosperity. Under the protection of the Moravian nobles, over 100 communal settlements were established, and the movement grew to 20,000 to 30,000 members. Several prosperous industries, including the production of ceramics and skilled medical practice, sustained the Hutterites financially. But that period eventually came to an end; amid wars and plagues, the Hutterites were expelled from Moravia in 1622. The course of events had many twists and turns in subsequent decades, during which various groups of Hutterites lived in different countries, but in 1770 they began to move to Russia, where the scattered movement became reunited under a government promise of relative religious freedom and, especially, exemption from military duty. For a time they gave up community of goods, but eventually they resumed the practice. Then, in 1871, the Russian government withdrew the exemption from military duty, and once again the Hutterites (and many Mennonites also living in Russia under similar conditions) felt compelled to move. In 1874 they began to depart for the United States, eventually settling in South Dakota.

Two separate congregations of Hutterites who had resumed communal living in Russia established communal settlements in South Dakota, and a third congregation organized itself communally after arriving there. Those three original colonies became the founding sites of distinct movements within Hutterism. Hutterites now consist of three “leuts,” or peoples – the Schmiedeleut (so called because their founding preacher, Michael Waldner, was a blacksmith, or Schmied), the Dariusleut (whose founding preacher was named Darius Walter), and the Lehrerleut (whose leader, Jacob Wipf, was regarded as an excellent teacher, or Lehrer). Other Hutterites also migrated to South Dakota but settled on individual farms; they became known as the Prairieleut. Each of the three communal leuts has certain distinctive practices, and intermarriage among them is rare, but to the outside observer they are greatly similar in their ways of living. The Schmiedeleut suffered a schism in 1992, largely over disagreements about the leadership of the Schmiedeleut bishop, Jacob Kleinsasser. It appears unlikely that the two factions will reunite during Kleinsasser’s lifetime. Those who have rejected Kleinsasser’s leadership are known as the Committee Hutterites.

The first few decades of American life were hard, and the Hutterites were little noticed by outsiders beyond their immediate neighborhoods. However, they expanded steadily as a result of a high birthrate (at times Hutterite families have averaged more than ten children). World War I was a time of trial for the American Hutterites. As pacifists they resisted military service, and several of their young men, taken into custody by military authorities, received treatment that can only be described as torture – sufficiently severe that two of them died from it. At the same time, persecution of German-speaking people became widespread among the American public, and criminal acts did a great deal of damage to Hutterite property. The Hutterites hastily moved to Canada, where exemption from military service had been promised to them; only a single colony remained in South Dakota. During the great depression, however, when legions of farmers left their land, South Dakota decided that it could profit from the presence of hard-working farmers who did not seek any kind of public assistance and invited the Hutterites to return, often to their former colony sites. Today Hutterites can be found in North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Washington, and Oregon, in the United States, and in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.

DOCTRINE/BELIEFS

Hutterites continue to subscribe to the basic principles historically upheld by the Anabaptists. The Bible is understood to be the source of teachings on both faith and lifestyle. Hutterite beliefs begin with a conviction that an omnipotent, omniscient God has provided eternal, unchanging truths by which humans are commanded to live. Human focus is to be on the eternal God, not on transitory material reality. Humans are to look toward a union with God in the afterlife, which is far more important than anything temporal.

Human beings are understood to have a fallen, carnal nature, and therefore have a natural tendency to sin. However, they can recognize sin and repent of it, and they can receive the grace that will permit them to be saved despite their sinfulness. The choice to receive grace must be made by each individual. One’s choosing to seek God’s way rather than the fallen way is outwardly shown in one’s works, or behavior; in Hutterite terms, Godly behavior means conformity to the standards of the church and the community (which are one and the same).

Anabaptists agree with most Protestants (indeed, most Christians) on most theological basics, but differ on several vital points. Their reading of the Bible concludes that they are commanded to be pacifists, and traditionally they have refused all military service, even noncombatant service. They believe in adult, not infant, baptism, a practice that led to their being ridiculed as Anabaptists, or “rebaptizers,” by their opponents. Since the name was originally pejorative, it was long resisted by members of the movement, and some today still object to it. They advocate a disciplined way of life in which members adhere to the church’s strict behavioral standards, and individual will is subjugated to the collective will of the community. To help themselves maintain proper behavior, they have traditionally tried to minimize contact with persons outside the movement. They are strong believers in the separation of church and state, having argued from their earliest days that civil magistrates should have no right to punish wrong belief.

Some Anabaptists, in the pursuit of simple and disciplined living, reject certain features of modern life and technology. The Amish, for example, do not drive cars or have electricity in their homes. The Hutterites embrace modern technology, as long as it does not interfere with traditional lifeways, and have become efficient modern farmers. However, unlike other Anabaptists, they insist on holding all property in common, a belief stemming from early Christian practices described in the biblical book of Acts.

The Protestant version of the Bible is the sacred scripture of the Hutterites. The movement has always been meticulous about documenting its own history, and early manuscript history books are greatly treasured in the movement, although they do not have the status of scripture.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Anabaptists generally have believed in minimizing ornamentation and ritual in their religious life, and the Hutterites are no exception. Brief prayers are said several times a day, as at meals. Worship services on each colony are central to religious life; those services follow time-honored patterns, featuring the reading of sermons composed centuries ago and a distinctive way of singing old hymns. Short services are usually held daily, and longer ones on Sunday. Because the Hutterites regard all of God’s creation as sacred, no special facilities are set apart for religious services. Church services are typically held in the schoolhouse.

Baptism is performed when a Hutterite is ready to become an adult member of the church/community, usually when a person is in his or her early twenties. On a Saturday the candidate undergoes an examination in regard to his or her beliefs, and Sunday the colony preacher performs the ceremony, which is conducted with the sprinkling of water over the candidate. Marriage typically comes not too long after baptism, especially for men. After a colony has approved of the marriage, a short engagement ceremony is held and a party follows. Then the couple travels to the groom’s colony (if they are from different colonies, as is usually the case), where a marriage ceremony typically follows a Sunday worship service. The couple then takes up residence at the groom’s colony.

Death takes place in a supportive colony environment. After the death, relatives at other colonies come to join the mourning process, which lasts for about two days. A funeral service, simple in form like other Hutterite observances, is held, and burial takes place in the colony cemetery.

Traditional in their faith and communal lifestyle, Hutterites have always accepted modern technology, especially farming technology, and many today are familiar with computers and other sophisticated equipment. School beyond about the eighth grade was traditionally opposed by the Hutterites, but today many young members attend high school, and occasionally even college.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

Hutterites claim a membership of 40,000, in more than 425 colonies in the U. S. and Canada.

Internal disputes have divided colonies, and such contemporary problems as child abuse have taken place in a few colonies. The movement, however, remains robust and continues to expand at a rate of perhaps 3% per year, with several new colonies constructed annually.

When a colony reaches about 150 members it builds a new colony, and half of the members are chosen by lot to move to the new location. In one recent count, there were about 11,500 Dariusleut Hutterites in 144 colonies; 12,000 Lehrerleut in 121 colonies, and 16,500 Schmiedeleut in 169 colonies.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Controversies, sometimes intense, have surrounded the Hutterites since their life together began nearly 500 years ago. Petty incidents, such as vandalism (broken windows, animals released from their pens), have been experienced by most colonies. Hutterite pacifism, as we have seen, has been highly controversial during wartime. As a matter of policy Hutterites object to paying war taxes, but generally do not try to distinguish between war-related and other use of their general tax payments.

Compulsory education laws have long been a point of contention between Hutterites and public officials. Although not opposed to education at the most basic level, Hutterites have historically been suspicious of too much formal schooling. In order to make sure that education conforms to Hutterite expectations, the colonies have their own schools. Basic lessons are taught in the “English” school, which covers the kinds of things generally taught in public school. The teacher is usually a nonhutterite since the Hutterites lack college degrees and do not usually have certified teachers in their ranks. A separate daily session is held in the “German” school, conducted in the traditional dialect (“Hutterisch”) spoken on the colonies, and taught by a Hutterite. Traditionally Hutterites have left school at about age 15 or when the state allows it, but in recent years colony high schools have been opened in several places.

After conflicts over pacifism, the most vexing antagonism with which Hutterites have been confronted has been opposition to their acquisition of farmland. Some traditional farmers are concerned that the Hutterites, with their low labor costs, have a competitive advantage. The high Hutterite birth rate has meant that new colonies are built and opened every year, each of them occupying several thousand acres of farmland. The first legal restriction on Hutterite property ownership came in the Canadian province of Alberta in 1942, at which time sale of land to Hutterites was legally prohibited; the law was amended in 1947 to let a new colony buy up to 6,400 acres of land, but only if it were located at least 40 miles from an existing colony. Although the law was later repealed, Hutterites responded to it by opening new colonies in Montana and Saskatchewan. Other jurisdictions have also contemplated restrictions on Hutterite land purchases, although nowhere has the sentiment for such restrictions been as great as it once was in Alberta.

REFERENCES

A complete bibliography of published works on the Hutterites would be prohibitively lengthy. This list presents a few of the major and readily available works. For a book-length bibliography see the work of Maria Krisztinkovich, below. A more limited bibliography is contained in the volume by Timothy Miller, also cited below.

Friedman, Robert. 1961. Hutterite Studies. Goshen, IN: Mennonite Historical Society.

Gross, S. Paul. 1965. The Hutterite Way. Saskatoon, SK Canada: Freeman Publishing.

Hostetler, A. John. 1997. Hutterite Society. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hostetler, A. John and Gertrude Enders Huntington. 1996. The Hutterites in North America. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Janzen, Rod. 1999. The Prairie People: Forgotten Anabaptists. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Krisztinkovich, H. Maria. 1998. An Annotated Hutterite Bibliography. Kitchener, ON Canada: Pandora Press,

Miller, Timothy. 1990. American Communes 1860-1960: A Bibliography. New York: Garland.

Peter, A. Karl. 1987. The Dynamics of Hutterite Society: An Analytical Introduction. Edmonton, AB Canada: University of Alberta Press.

Peters, Victor. 1965. All Things Common: The Hutterian Way of Life. New York: Harper and Row.

Stephenson, H. Peter. 1991. The Hutterian People: Ritual and Rebirth in the Evolution of Communal Life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Post Date:
January, 2012

I AM ACTIVITY TIMELINE

1878:  Guy W. Ballard was born in Newton, Kansas, United States.

1886:  Edna Wheeler was born in Chicago, Illinois, United States.

1930:  Guy Ballard’s alleged first encounter with the ascended master Saint Germain occurred on Mount Shasta.

1932:  The Saint Germain Foundation and publishing house was founded.

1934:  Guy Ballard’s first book Unveiled Mysteries was published under his pen name Godfré Ray King.

1935:  The Magic Presence, and The “I AM” Discourses were published.

1936:  The Voice of the “I AM” journal was founded.

1939 (December 29):  Guy W. Ballard died from arteriosclerosis in his son’s home in Los Angeles.

1941:  The Internal R evenue Service revoked the movement’s tax-exempt status, as the movement was not formally recognized as a religion at the time.

1942:  Edna and their son Donald Ballard were charged with mail fraud by the Los Angeles state attorney .

1954:  The movement re-obtained its right to use the postal system.

1957:  The movement re-obtained its tax-exempt status, and Donald Ballard left the movement.

1971:  Edna Ballard died.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

According to the narrative of Guy W. Ballard (1878-1939) as presented in his first book, Unveiled Mysteries (1934), the I Am Activity began in August-October 1930 with his meeting of an ascended master by the name Saint Germain upon Mount Shasta, the volcanic White Mountain in northern California (King 1934: xvii) . Ballard was sent on government business to a little town at the foot of Mount Shasta, and, as he explains, having heard occult rumors of a group of divine men named the Brotherhood of Mount Shasta he decided to investigate this in his spare time (King 1934:1).

However, as Ballard narrates, one particular morning he planned a hike in the mountain to reconnect with the innermost of his heart and enter a sacred space (King 1934:2). During lunchtime, it had become very warm and Ballard had found a river with clean spring water. He took out his cup ready to fill it when an electrical current passed through his entire body from head to foot as a young man suddenly appeared behind him (King 1934:3). The man began an elaborate discourse about the infinite possibilities man can gain access to through the right apprehension of Love, intense desire and what is termed the Eternal Law of Life or the idea that whatever a person thinks and feels will manifest in his life through hidden spiritual laws (King 1934:4-6).

According to Ballard’s narrative, he thus first learned about the I Am Presence on this mountain. After further discourses on The Eternal Law of Life or the right control of thoughts and feelings in order to manifest what one wishes, the young man revealed his true self to Ballard, as the ascended master Saint Germain: [Image at right]

He stood there before me—a Magnificent God-like figure—in a white jeweled robe, a Light and Love sparkling in his eyes that revealed and proved the Dominion and Majesty that are his (King 1934:15).

This occurrence put him in a place of authority alongside previous Theosophical leaders such as Helena P. Blavatsky (1831-1891), Henry S. Olcott (1832-1907), A. P. Sinnett (1840-1921), C. W. Leadbeater (1854-1934) and Alice A. Bailey (1880-1949).

His wife Edna Anne Wheeler (1886-1971) and son Donald Ballard son were also designated accredited messengers, even though Edna only received new messages during the last few years of her life and Donald never received any and finally resigned from his involvement with the I AM Activity in 1957.

Ballard returned to his home in Chicago, Illinois after his visit to Mount Shasta, and he and his wife [Image at right] established theI Am Activity. In 1932, they founded the Saint Germain Foundation and a publishing house, the Saint Germain Press . However, according to Jean-François Mayer , it was not until 1934 with their publication of Ballard’s first book Unveiled Mysteries under his pen name Godfré Ray King that the movement really began to take off . This lead to the publication of his next two books the following year (1935): The Magic Presence, which continued his narrative of personal experiences with the ascended masters and The “I AM” Discourses which basically is a guide to applying the I AM teachings and a more elaborate description of the I AM principle.

In 1934, Guy Ballard publicly demonstrated his claimed communication with the ascended masters for the first time. The messages received from these events were later published in The Voice of the “I AM” journal founded in 1936 and included nearly 4,000 recorded messages that later were compiled in book-form in twenty volumes. Ballard’s public display of his communications became so popular that conclaves were held in auditoriums from 1935 on with room for 6,000 people (Mayer 2005 :587). These conclaves included spiritualistic ritualistic activities where messages were received directly from the ascended masters and guided prayers and affirmations. This popularity resulted in a continued expansion of Ballards’ audience, which by around 1938 might have been around 1,000,000 followers (Melton 2009:4246). This astonishing popularity can be perceived as a response to the Great Depression, which began with the U.S. Wall Street stock market crash on October 29, 1929 and lasted through the 1930s. In this time of great crisis many of Ballard’s teachings and practices seem to have appealed to a general public in search of meaning.

Close to the end of the Great Depression and the height of Guy Ballard’s popularity, he died from arteriosclerosis on December 29, 1939 in his son’s home in Los Angeles and was cremated on December 31. The next day his wife announced that at midnight on December 31 Guy Ballard had ascended at the Royal Teton, which according to the I AM mythology is a spiritual abode where ascended masters dwell and train their disciples in North America (Grand Teton Mountain, Wyoming) (King 1934:72-108, 243-60) .

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

Ballard’s writings outlining the basic teachings and practices of the I AM Activity are not systematic theological writings, but rather consist of narratives and dialogues with some illustrative examples. The doctrines that often are touched upon in the books are closely aligned with the modern Theosophical tradition and thus include belief in inner spiritual worlds; a higher self, spiritual bodies, reincarnation and karma, spiritual enlightenment and a grand divine plan of the universe, but the most important theme and the source of spiritual authority was Ballard’s claimed contact with what he termed the ” ascended masters ” (Rudbøg 2013:154-60. This web-article is to some extent adapted from Rudbøg 2013).

According to the I Am Activity, the ascended masters are described as perfected beings, members of The Great White Brotherhood (King 1935:vi-vii, viii) “…who direct, protect and assist in expanding the Light within mankind upon this earth” (King 1934:vii). Ballard however emphasizes that these beings are actual physical-spiritual beings. They inhabit physical bodies and dwell in physical locations (King 1935:ix-x). The idea that the masters, who for a long time have operated in secret, now reveal themselves to the world through Ballard and pour extra amounts of Light into humanity is according to I AM teachings evidence of a dawning golden age. It is an I AM age which in itself highlights the unique importance of the I AM teachings and their unique attraction during the Great Depression (Saint Germain 1935:x-xi, xiv). Furthermore, when the golden age cyclically emerges again, it is believed that the masters will walk amongst men as they once did in former golden ages and once again explain “… the original Divine Way of Life …” (King 1935:vii).

While Ballard argues that mankind has forgotten “the original Divine Way of Life,” the I Am Activity does not entertain a destructive eschatological millenarian expectation. Rather, they often praise the physical world. However, Ballard calls for urgency during his time of secular society’s crisis to recognize the masters, the angelic hosts and their work of “constantly pouring out their Transcendent Light and Assistance to mankind” (King 1935:vi) . C ooperation through recognition of the masters and through the I Am principle will aid in bringing about the new historical period of peace and divine love (King 1935:vi). Such cooperation with the masters is thus perceived as a central goal for the practicing I Am individual and would provide the believer with a sense of participation in the lifting of the crisis of the time. Consequently, receiving messages from such masters was a vital religious activity during group gatherings, in which the authoritative messenger would dictate the messages from the masters to the group.

Saint Germain and Jesus are the most central masters to the I Am Activity. Every I AM sanctuary therefore ha s pictures of both Saint Germain and Jesus. Saint Germain and other masters were furthermore deeply patriotically and nationalistically, linked to what was regarded as the unique spiritual mission and destiny of America.

There is a “Special Group of … Great Ones working at the present time with America, to stabilize and protect her. Among Them, the Ascended Masters, Saint Germain, Jesus, Nada, Cha-Ara, Lanto, Cyclopea, the Great Master from Venus, Arcturus, the Lords of Flame from Venus, and One, known as the Great Divine Director, are working here very definitely by establishing Tremendous Pillars and Rays of Light in America (King 1935:vi) .

Here Ballard introduces several new masters into the Theosophical tradition of the Great White Brotherhood, such as Nada, Cha-Ara, Lanto, Cyclopea, Arcturus and the Great Divine Director. He focuses less on the conventional Theosophical masters such as Master Koot Hoomi and Master Morya known from Blavatsky’s time. Where the Ancient Wisdom and the masters with Blavatsky and later theosophists were placed in secret places in the Far East, the time had now come, according to Ballard, for them to be operating in America (King 1935: vii).

In relation to the belief in ascended masters and a golden age, a central part of the doctrines of the I AM Activity is the so called IAM principle. According to the I AM Activity teaching , there is one life force, God, which is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and known as the Great Central Sun of the inner universe, whose pure divine life-force streams through all things as divine light. This is the mighty I AM Presence. Outer creation manifests when the mighty I AM Presence is individualized in the form of dynamic energy. Every individual, cell or atom is thus essentially a divine expression of the mighty I AM, God in action (Saint Germain 1935:3, 5; Melton 1994:9):

When you recognize and accept fully, “I AM,” as the Mighty Presence of God in you—in action , you will have taken one of the greatest steps to liberation (Saint Germain 1935:13, 19).

The I AM presence is close to what later new age religious groups would term the ” higher self ,” and it is the realization of this higher self or the I AM presence that is at the core of many of the rituals practiced in the I AM movement.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

The practice of positive affirmations that more recently has become popular in self-help and positive psychology groups is fundamental to ritual practices in the I AM Activity. The Ballards’ approach to the practice of affirmations was derived from New Thought and is centered around the notion that everyone is divine and perfect in essence and therefore always in a condition of perfect health. Furthermore, the mind is causative, and hence we are the ones who through misapprehension and false thoughts construct bad health and ill conditions (Rudbøg 2013:160-66). By using affirmations, we can alter our false self-perception by affirming how things are in the divine reality and thus change the negative condition in which we think we are at present.

In the context of New Thought, even when one states a simple sentence, such as “I AM happy,” one makes use of God’s name, which is identical to one’s own self. In that sense it helps manifest ones true identity and union with God. Thus it is highly destructive to make a statement that includes a negative affirmation, such as ” I AM sick ” as this counteracts truth and the process of realization. In the Gospel of John, Jesus likewise began many sentences with the proclamation I AM; which according to New Thought and Ballard is taken as evidence that he utilized this teaching (John 6:38, 48, 51; 11:25; 14:6, 10, 20; 15:1, 5 ; Saint Germain 1935: 12, 20-1, 23).

Ballard however emphasized the importance of his own teachings when he remarked that

Only fragments of the real understanding of the “I AM Presence” have been given to the outer world until now. The Ascended Master, Saint Germain, says: It is the most important Understanding mankind can ever have; and there is no Freedom nor Perfection for the individual, except through this conscious application.

He considers it of such paramount importance that he dictated more than thirty-three discourses in which he explains what happens in the outer Life of the individual when one says I AM. He also says: “Nothing will bless the individual to so great a degree as the conscious Understanding of this ‘Creative Word'” (Saint Germain 1935:xv).

This I AM in each individual is believed to be one with the infinite Mind of God, so by fully realizing it through the practice of affirmation, one can accomplish close to any thing (Saint Germain 1935:70): “whatever you declare is manifest that moment” (Saint Germain 1935:71). Such wish-fulfillment would no doubt have been particularly attractive during the striking crisis of the 1930s. The problem according to the I Am teachings is, however, that humanity and the individual alike have forgotten this innate divine creative power. Through continuous wrong thinking mankind has become impure and produced impurity in their surroundings, which means that even though the I AM is pure and unobstructed energy all the time:

Everyone is constantly qualifying this energy which is pouring forth continually. Each one is continually pouring his color into it, through his own consciousness. … Every student must [therefore] take the responsibility of his own activity in qualifying the energy he sends forth (Saint Germain 1935:71-2, brackets are mine).

The art of the I AM practice is therefore to ritualistically purify ones emotions, thoughts and actions through self-control (King 1934:9-18) and thus open up the inflow of this divine life energy instead of obstructing it:

“I AM” is the Activity of “That Life” … When you say, and feel “I AM,” you release the spring of Eternal, Everlasting Life to flow on Its way unmolested (Saint Germain 1935:2).

The way to manifest the I AM, to set God in action, and open up to health, perfection or whatever one might want to accomplish is thus, according to the I AM teachings, by either silently or aloud decreeing the I AM in relation to the desired object (I am healthy, I am courageous, I am rich). When new students thus begin their I AM work, they are given such basic decrees contained in small booklets composed with specific goals in mind.

I Am activity rituals are however not only found on the individual level. On a larger social level , the movement still ritualistically enacts sacred dramas and conduct sacred gatherings. The movement has, for example, every August since 1950 kept its ‘I AM Come!’ Pageant at Mount Shasta. This is a ritual enactment of “the life of Beloved Jesus, focusing on His Miracles of Truth and Healing, and the example of the Ascension which He left to the world” (Saint Germain Foundation website).

According to the I AM perspective, human beings have simply forgotten their divine inner master consciousness, the I AM, the Christ Self. The ascended masters, and here specifically Jesus, therefore function as religious or devotional exemplars for I AM members.

Along with their “I Am Come!” Pageant, colorful images, such as a diagram entitled “the magic presence,” is often used by the movement to practice the realization of the I AM presence. [Image at right] The magic presence diagram shows an individual standing within a purple flame. Above the person is another person hovering in front of a colorful sun. The person hovering above the person standing on the ground sends forth an aura of golden light, which connects with the upper body and head of the person standing on the ground. The colorful central sun is the Mighty I AM Presence, the person hovering is the I AM, the inner Christ or master self , and the person on the ground is the individual personality connected to the I AM master self. The Violet Flame is released in the presence of the I AM and consumes all disharmony and impurity in the individual and in the world (King 1935: front-piece. See also Melton 1994:10-11). The visualization practice and use of what is known as the Violet Flame in relation to such colorful diagrams is both unique and central to the I AM teachings and its offshoots even though the use of the violet light and its relation to the seventh ray already was formulated in 1922 by Alice A. Bailey (Bailey 1973:127). Another minor, near magical, feature of Ballard’s practical teachings is the use of a visualized protective electronic belt, which will keep the individual from all harm (Saint Germain 1935:57, 78).

Ballard’s path for the I AM aspirant, in order to truly master the I AM Presence, is thus markedly ritualistic through the practice of decreeing, self control, contemplation and the use of the Violet Flame. These practices are intended to help the student to ascend and achieve master-hood, which is coupled with the perfect realization of the pure I AM Presence in action and the perfect mastering of the great Law of Life or what more popularly now is call positive thinking.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

The movement is still to this day active including its internet presence, which provides numerous details on publications and events in its various centers. According to the movement website,

The “I AM” Activity is spiritual, educational and practical. There are no financial schemes behind it; no admission is ever charged. Ittakes no political stance in any nation. The parent organization is Saint Germain Foundation, with worldwide headquarters located in Schaumburg, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. [Image at right] It is represented throughout the world by 300 local groups termed “I AM” Sanctuary®, “I AM” Temple®,”I AM” Study Groups®, or “I AM” Reading Room®. Saint Germain Foundation and its local activities are not affiliated with any other organization or persons.

The Saint Germain Press also continues to publish the I AM books, pamphlets, artwork and audio recordings of the Ballards’ teachings as well as the monthly magazine The Voice of the ‘I AM’, which is still available by subscription .

There are several offshoot movements related to Ballard’s I Am teachings. After the Second World War , the movement experienced several divisions, which resulted in movements such as The Bridge to Freedom (1951), The Summit Lighthouse (1958), The Ascended Master Teaching Foundation (1980), and The Temple of the Presence (1995). In terms of influence, it was especially through these movements that the I AM teachings entered the broader current of New Age spirituality with ideas such as the I AM Presence, the Ascended masters, the use of positive affirmations/decrees, the focus on the divine light permeating everything, the use of simple devotional language and colorful spiritual artwork (Rudbøg 2013:168-70).

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Not long after Guy Ballard’s death and with the Second World War overhead, the I AM Activity faced a challenging twenty years. Gerald B. Bryan, the great I Am critic, after publishing his Psychic Dictatorship in America (1940), urged former students of the movement to file lawsuits against it. The situation animated, during this intense anti-totalitarian period in the U.S., and resulted in the IRS withdrawing the movement’s tax-exempt status in 1941 as the movement was not formally recognized as a religion. Furthermore, in 1942 Edna and Donald Ballard were charged with mail fraud by the Los Angeles state attorney under the accusation that the teachings of the I AM Activity literally were unbelievable. This became a landmark court case relating to religious freedom in the U.S. (United States v. Ballard 1944, 322 U.S. 78). The trials ended with a second trial in 1946 with no standing convictions. The right to use the postal system was, however, not automatically returned to them and could only be re-obtained through a long process, which finally saw its end in 1954, three years before the movement saw the return of their tax-exempt status (Albanese 2007:470).

IMAGES

Image #1: Photograph of Mount Shasta.
Image #2: Image of the Count of Saint Germain.
Image #3: Photograph of Guy W. Ballard and his wife, Edna Anne Wheeler.
Image #4: Photograph of activities at the annual I AM Come!’ Pageant at Mount Shasta, California.
Image #5: Symbolic representation of the I Am Presence.
Image #6: Photograph of the world headquarters of the Saint Germain Foundation in Schaumburg, Illinois.

REFERENCES

Albanese, Catherine L. 2007. A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Mind and Spirit. Yale: Yale University Press.

Bailey, Alice A. 1973. Letters On Occult Meditation. New York: Lucis Publishing House.

Barrett, David. 1998. Sects, “Cults,” and Alternative Religions: A World Survey and Sourcebook. London: Blandford.

Bryan, Gerald B. 1940. Psychic Dictatorship in America. Burbank, CA: New Era Press.

King, Godfre Ray [pseudonym of Guy W. Ballard]. 1935. The Magic Presence. Chicago: Saint Germain Press.

King, Godfre Ray [pseudonym of Guy W. Ballard]. 1934. Unveiled Mysteries. Chicago: Saint Germain Press .

Mayer, Jean-François. 2005. ”‘I AM” Activity” Pp. 587-88 in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, edited by Wouter J. Hanegraaff. Leiden: Brill.

Melton, J. Gordon. 2009. Melton’s Encyclopedia of American Religions, Eighth edition. Detroit: Gale.

Melton, J. Gordon. 1994. “The Church Universal and Triumphant: Its Heritage and Thoughtworld.” Pp. 1-20 in Church Universal and Triumphant: In Scholarly Perspective. Stanford, CA: Center for Academic Publication.

Rudbøg, Tim. 2013. “The I Am Activity” Pp. 151-72 in Handbook of the Theosophical Current, edited by Olav Hammer and Michael Rothstein. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Saint Germain [through Guy W. Ballard]. 1935. The “I AM” Discourses. Chicago: Saint Germain Press.

Saint Germain website. n.d. Accessed from www.saintgermainfoundation.org on 8 September 2016.

SUPPLEMENTARY RESOURCES

Anderson, C . Alan. 1997. “Quimby As Founder of New Thought” The Journal of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religion 3 : 5-22.

Bailey, Alice A. 1958. The Externalization of the Hierarchy. Tunbridge Wells, Great Britain: Lucis Press.

Bjorling, Joel. 1992. Channeling: A Bibliographic Exploration. New York and London: Garland.

Braden, Charles Samuel. 1963. Spirits in Rebellion: The Rise and Development of New Thought. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.

Braden, Charles Samuel. 1950. These Also Believe: A Study of Modern American Cults and Minority Religious Movements. New York: MacMillan.

Ellwood, Robert S. 1988. ” Making New Religions: The Story of the Mighty ‘I AM’.” History Today 38:20-21.

Ellwood, Robert S. 1973. Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hammer, Olav. 2001. Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill

Leadbeater, Charles W. 1925. The Masters and the Path. Adyar: The Theosophical Publishing House.

Melton, J. Gordon. 1996. Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, Fourth edition. Detroit: Gale.

Melton, J. Gordon. 1996. ” The Case of Edward J. Arens and the Distortion of the History of New Thought.” The Journal of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religion 2:13–30.

Melton, J. Gordon. 1992. New Age Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York and London: Garland.

Melton, J. Gordon. 1991. Religious Leaders of America. Detroit: Gale.

Melton, J. Gordon et al. 1990. New Age Encyclopedia. Detroit, New York and London: Gale.

Prophet, Elizabeth Clare. 1983. The Great White Brotherhood. Malibu, CA: Summit University Press.

Reeves, Thomas C. 2000. Twentieth-century America: A Brief History. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stupple, David W. 1965. A Functional Approach to Social Movements with an Analysis of the I AM Religious Sect and the Congress of Racial Equality. M.A. thesis. Kansas City: University of Missouri.

Whitsel, Bradley C. 2003. The Church Universal and Triumphant: Elizabeth Clare Prophet’s Apocalyptic Movement. New York: Syracuse University Press.

Post Date:
9 August 2016

ISKCON TIMELINE

1896:  International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) founder Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada was born as Abhay Charan De, in Calcutta, India.

1932:  Prabhupada took initiation from his guru Bhaktisiddhanta, becoming a disciple of Krishna.

1936:  Bhaktisiddhanta charged Prabhupada with spreading Krishna consciousness in the West.

1944:  Prabhupada began publishing Back to Godhead, an English-language publication.

1959:  Prabhupada took sanyasa order, becoming a monk and dedicating himself full time to spreading Krishna Consciousness.

1965:  Prabhupada traveled to America.

1966:  ISKCON was founded in New York City; Prabhupada initiated his first disciples; ISKCON became part of hippie counterculture.

1966-1968:  ISKCON spread to other major North American cities (San Francisco, Boston, Toronto, and Los Angeles) and globally (India, England, Germany, and France).

1968:  ISKCON members founded New Vrindaban, a rural commune in West Virginia that later became a source of conflict.

1968-1969:  Prabhupada met with members of The Beatles; George Harrison became a disciple; the Hare Krishna movement became part of transatlantic musical and artistic landscape.

1970:  The ISKCON Governing Board Commission (GBC) and Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) were established.

1977:  Prabhupada died.

1977-1987:  A series of succession conflicts resulted in schisms and a significant loss of membership.

1984-1987:  A reform movement emerged within ISKCON.

1985-1987:  The New Vrindaban community separated from ISKCON; criminal charges were filed against its leaders.

1987:  GBC endorses position of Reform movement

1991:  The ISKCON Foundation was created to build bridges with Hindu immigrants to America.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

The story of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement, tightly interweaves with the story of its founder, the religious teacher (swami ) A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada. Born Abhay Charan De, in Calcutta, India, the future founder of ISKCON witnessed firsthand the modernization of India and the effects of British colonial rule. His autobiographic reflections and official hagiography reveal that he was both enamored of the tremendous social, cultural, and technological change occurring around him as well as attracted to the traditional mores of his family, faith, and culture (Zeller 2012:73-81). According to his biography, Abhay grew up across the street from a Vaishnava temple, a Hindu sect dedicated to the worship of Krishna. The Chaitanya (Gaudya) Vaishnava branch of Hinduism practiced at the temple, which would later become the form that Abhay Charan De accepted and of which he become the greatest proponent, is a monotheistic type of Hinduism. It envisions Krishna as the supreme form of God who creates and maintains the cosmos, and who is both personal and universal God (Goswami 1980).

As a child of high caste middle class parents, Abhay attended a British colonial school and college, earned a Bachelors degree, and became a chemist working for a pharmaceutical company. He married and had children, all the while continuing his personal religious devotions. In 1922, he met a swami in the Chaitanya Vaishnava lineage named Bhaktisiddhanta, and ten years later he took initiation from Bhaktisiddhanta and became a disciple. Abhay was later granted the honorific Bhaktivedanta on account of his religious erudition and dedication. Bhaktisiddhanta charged his colonially educated disciple with spreading Krishna consciousness among English-speakers (Knott 1986:26-31).

Bhaktivedanta did just this, at first part time as a householder through public speeches and a new English-language newspaper hefounded in 1944, Back to Godhead . After arriving in America over two decades later, Bhaktivedanta would restart Back to Godhead, which eventually became the official organ of ISKCON, its major publication, and the literary means by which the movement propagated itself. Bhaktivedanta also began translating sacred Vaishnava scriptures into English, notably the Bhagavadgita and Bhagavata Purana.

In keeping with Hindu religious norms and Indian social norms, in 1959 Bhaktivedanta took the religious order of sanyasa, becoming a monastic and leaving behind his familial obligations. He then dedicated himself to the fulltime religious propagation of Krishna consciousness and laid the groundwork for his travel to the English speaking West. He did so in 1965, arriving in Boston and then founding a religious ministry in the bohemian areas of Manhattan. Finding limited interest among the middle class, Bhaktivedanta discovered that his religious message primarily appealed to members of the counterculture who had rejected middle class American social, cultural, and religious norms (Rochford 1985). Bhaktivedanta rededicated himself to outreach to this segment of the population. His disciples took to calling him Prabhupada, an honorific that Bhaktisiddhanta had also used.

Prabhupada founded ISKCON in New York City in 1966. Within months his own disciples and converts began to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the American hippie counterculture, first to San Francisco and then to other major North American cities. Within two years of founding ISKCON, Prabhupada and his disciples had planted temples throughout North America and Europe, making inroads in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Canada, as well as establishing an outreach in India itself. ISKCON members also established a series of rural communes, the best known of which was New Vrindaban, in West Virginia. Most members were full-time disciples, dedicating themselves to propagating Krishna Consciousness and living in the temples and communes. Some began to marry, and Prabhupada blessed their marriages. A divide between married householders and fulltime monastic members would eventually cause tensions within the movement. During this time ISKCON also made inroads among the creative class, with George Harrison and John Lennon of The Beatles becoming enamored of the Hare Krishnas and their philosophy. ISKCON had become a recognized part of the transatlantic youth counterculture of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Knott 1986).

In the 1970s, Prabhupada laid the groundwork for the institutionalization of his charismatic leadership. He founded the Governing Board Commission (GBC) and Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT), two legal entities that were charged respectively with managing the movement and literary output of the founder. In the remaining seven years before his death, Prabhupada granted increasingly more authority to the GBC and BBT, though as founder and undisputed leader of ISKCON he routinely acted independently of the institution and even directed them on occasion. Though Prabhupada attempted to groom members of the GBC and BBT to manage the movement, few of its members had any administrative experience and most had been countercultural hippies only years earlier. A conflicting set of instructions regarding religious, as opposed to bureaucratic, authority sowed the seeds of later discord after Prabhpada’s death (see below, Issues/Challenges).

The decade after Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada’s death in 1977 was characterized by a series of succession conflicts. Competing forces within ISKCON envisioned alternative directions for the movement, and many of the leaders were incapable of assuming the mantle Prabhupada had left. Many members of ISKCON’S GBC sought to refocus on the monastic strand within the tradition, disparaging and often ignoring the increasingly numerically significant householders. Financial problems led some members of the movement to approve of unethical and even illegal fund raising strategies, and several of the religious gurus became involved in sexual or drug-related scandals. It was a dark period for many members of ISKCON, and the movement shed over half of its adherents in the two decades that followed (Rochford 1985:221-55; Rochford 2007:1-16).

The debacle at New Vrindaban ( explored below, under Issues/Challenges ), a series of conflicts over religious gurus, poor leadership by the GBC, accusations of child abuse in the ISKCON schools, and several well publicized falls from grace by Prabhupada’s hand-picked successors resulted in a decade of numerical decline and soul searching by members of the Hare Krishna movement. A reform movement began to emerge within ISKCON during the mid-1980s calling for better oversight, clearer ethical standards for the leaders, and increased participation of householders and women in the leadership of ISKCON. In 1987, the GBC endorsed most of the proposals of ISKCON reform movement, among them abolishing the “zonal acharya system” that had created regional fiefdoms wherein individual gurus functioned as sole religious leaders without oversight (Deadwyler 2004).

In recent decades, ISKCON has stabilized under the leadership of a more professional and broader based GBC, as well as individual temples that have empowered laypeople, householders, and families rather than solely relying on monastic elites. Some of the current issues facing the Hare Krishna movement in the twenty-first century are the relation of ISKCON to broader Hinduism and the Indian diasporic community and the acculturation and education of second and third generation members.

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

The Hare Krishna movement must be understood as a form of the Chaitanya (Gaudya) school of Vaishnavism, a monotheistic branch of Hinduism tracing its origin to the sixteenth century reforms of the religious guru Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1533). As a Vaishnava tradition, IKSCON falls within the largest of the three major schools of Hinduism, focusing on the veneration of Vishnu as supreme God. (The other major schools are Shaivism, worshipping Shiva, and Shaktism, venerating Shakti, the divine mother.) Hinduism is a quite diverse tradition, and because the notion of Hinduism as a unified religion is quite new and in many ways foreign to actual Hindu self-understandings (the term was first imposed on Hindus by Muslims and then Christians) one can make relatively few generalizations about the tradition as a whole. Hindus accept the doctrines of karma and reincarnation, the notion of unified cosmic law (dharma), beliefs in vast cosmic cycles of creation and destruction, and hold that there are multiple goals within life that culminate in the quest for self-understanding and spiritual freedom (moksha). Importantly, Hindus believe that the gods incarnate in physical form as avatars in order to accomplish divine work on Earth. Foremost are the avatars of Vishnu, notably Krishna and Rama as described in the Hindu epics of the Mahabharata, of which the Bhagavadgita is a part, the Ramayana, and the devotional text of the Bhagavata Purana. Hindus also hold as central the ideal of the guru, the spiritual master who takes disciples and teaches them how to seek spiritual self-fulfillment and salvation. All of these basic Hindu beliefs carry over into Vaishnavism, the Chaitanya school, and ISKCON specifically (Frazier 2011).

The Chaitanya school is part of the bhakti or devotional path of Hinduism, a path that cuts across the different schools of Hindu practice and has long been one of the most popular forms of Hindu practice. Bhakti practitioners center their religious lives on the ideal of devotion to their chosen God, serving the divine through worship, prayer, song, social service, and study. Members of bhakti groups who become initiated as formal devotees often vow to perform specific means of devotion, including set numbers of prayers or forms of worship. In the case of ISKCON, initiated devotees also take new Vaishnava names referring to their divine service.

The Hare Krishna movement and other branches of the Chaitanya tradition depart from most other forms of Hinduism in terms ofunderstanding Krishna as the true nature of the divine, or the supreme personality of Godhead (to use the language most often heard within the movement itself). This reverses the more common belief held by most Hindus that Krishna was one among several avatars or appearances of Vishnu. As Indologist and expert on the Vaishnava tradition Graham Schweig explains, “the Chaitanyaites consider Krishna as the ultimate transcendent Lord at the very center of the godhead from whom the majestic and powerful cosmic Vishnu emanates. Krishna is known as the purnavatara, ‘full descent of the deity’” (Schweig 2004:17). In other words, members of the Hare Krishna movement look to Krishna as the true and absolute nature of the divine as well as the specific appearance of the divine who took form in ancient India as an avatar. Adherents of the Chaitanya school also distinguish themselves from other Hindus by regarding the founder himself, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, as an incarnation of Krishna.

ISKCON devotees are monotheistic, believing that the other divinities of Hinduism are mere demigods in service of Krishna, and they worship Krishna in the various forms that he takes. Yet ISKCON theology also recognizes that Krishna exists in a binary pairing of Radha-Krishna, where Radha is the female consort and lover of the male Krishna, the cowgirl ( gopi ) who symbolizes the devotee himself or herself in seeking intimate connection to the divine. Devotees venerate other avatars, associates, and saintly devotees of Krishna, such as Rama, Balaram, Chaitanya, and the sacred basil plant ( tulasi ) that adherents believe is an Earthly incarnation of one of Krishna’s associates on the spiritual realm.

One of the most important aspects of ISKCON beliefs is the centrality of the idea of the Vedas, Vedic knowledge, and Vedism. Prabhupada and others referred to the tradition as a “Vedic science” and envisioned the Society as propagating Vedic norms in the modern world. The Vedas are the ancient sacred texts of India, the origin, dating, and province of which are hotly contested by scholars, practitioners, and even politicians. Like other Hindus, devotees believe that the Vedas are the essence of dharma : timeless truths recorded by ancient sages and indicating the basic truths and underlying law of the universe, the structuring of society, the purpose of living, and the nature of the divine (Frazier 2011). ISKCON takes a broad view of the Vedic corpus as including the Puranas, Bhagavadgita, and other later sources, since they perceive these texts as part of the same religious and textual tradition as the earliest Vedic sources.

Prabhupada and his earliest disciples positioned ISKCON as Vedic and in opposition to what they saw as decadent and materialistic Western (non-Vedic) culture, capturing much of the spirit of the counterculture and fusing it with Prabhupada’s anti-imperialist Indian perspective. Some elements of contemporary ISKCON retain this highly twofold manner of envisioning society as Vedic (good) vs. non-Vedic (bad), but other members of ISKCON have synthesized the ideal of living in accordance with the Vedas within life in the contemporary West.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

The central ritual of ISKCON is that of chanting the name of God in the form of the mahamantra (great mantra): Hare Krishna, HareKrishna, Krishna Krishna, Rama Rama, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. This mahamantra not only gave the movement its unofficial but most common name but also links ISKCON back to the theological developments of Chaitanya, who predicted predicated his sixteenth century reforms on chanting, as well as Bhaktisiddhanta, who emphasized chanting as well. Chaitanya, Bhaktisiddhanta, and Prabhupada all emphasized that chanting was not only supremely pleasing to God and spiritually efficacious but also easy to do, universally available, and fit for contemporary times. Initiated members of ISKCON vow to chant sixteen rounds of the Hare Krishna mahamantra each day, where each round includes 108 repititions repetitions of the mantra. Some devotees do this in temples, others at home shrines, and still others in gardens, parks, workplaces, or during daily commutes. Chanting, along with following the regulative principles (no illicit sex, intoxicants, meat eating, or gambling) serve as the heart of religious practice in Krishna Consciousness (Bhaktivedanta 1977).

Prabhupada also emphasized book distribution, and the donation or selling of literature remains one of the most a common formsof religious practice in ISKCON outside of chanting. In the early days of the movement ISKCON devotees made a name for themselves selling books, magazines, and pamphlets in streets, parks, and, most famously, airports. The movement was lampooned for these practices in such American popular culture fixtures as Airplane! and The Muppet Movie. A series of court cases in the 1980 limited the ability to engage in book distribution in public places. With the aging of the movement, public activities such as book distribution, chanting, and preaching (collectively called sankirtana ) have become less common.

Increasingly, ISKCON members look to their religious involvement as centered on weekly attendance at the temple and performing deity worship there. While temple worship certainly extends to the earliest days of the movement, the advent of congregational membership and the demographic shifts that have made congregational membership the norm has led to weekly temple attendance becoming central. In the United States, where Protestant norms have shaped the environment, ISKCON temples hold weekly worship on Sundays. During deity worship at temples, Hare Krishna devotees engage in a ritualized form of devotion (bhakti ), including service to Krishna (puja ), and viewing of Krishna (darshan). ISKCON follows standard Vaishnava and broader Hindu worship norms with some minor additions, such as salutations to ISKCON’s founder Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada through chants and spoken prayers.

Temple worship normally ends in a communal meal, and such meals, “feasts,” as ISKCON advertisements have called them since 1965, often attract a diverse range of attendees. Certainly the majority of those eating at the ISKCON feasts are worshipers who took part in temple services, but the Hare Krishna movement uses its feasts as an outreach effort, and in many cases spiritual seekers, hungry college students, and simply the curious attend as well. The food served is spiritual food (prasadam) that has been offered to Krishna, and adherents believe that preparing, distributing, and eating it are spiritual acts. Outside of temples, Krishna devotees offer prasadam in venues ranging from public parks to college campuses to city streets. Adherents look to the distribution of such spiritual food as not just a religious act but also a form of evangelism as well as social welfare and feeding the hungry (Zeller 2012).

ISKCON’s religious calendar is filled with holidays ranging from weekly partial fasts to monthly lunar ceremonies to major yearly festivals. Such festivals commemorate the activities of Krishna, his closest disciples, and the major leaders of ISKCON’s lineage, such as the birth and death of Chaitanya and Prabhupada. ISKCON adherents also celebrate all the major Hindu holidays such as Holi, Navaratri, and Divali, but they do so in ways highlighting Krishna rather than other Hindu deities. The celebration of holidays explicitly centering on other Gods, such as Shivaratri, are contentious issues within individual ISKCON communities. Many Western-born devotees are uninterested in venerating what they consider demigods, and many Indian-born devotees seek to participate in valued parts of their religious-cultural tradition.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

Today ISKCON’s organization is both centralized and diffuse. It is centralized in terms of the authority of the GBC, the sole institution granted the legitimacy and authority over the religious affairs of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. The GBC determines how funds are collected and used, which gurus will travel to what areas of the world, where to focus evangelism efforts, and how to respond to challenges and problems as they occur. The GBC has the authority to make liturgical changes as well, for example limiting the veneration of gurus to Prahbuphada alone. Along with the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, which publishes the liturgical, educational, and intellectual materials of the movement, the GBC is the embodiment of the institutionalized charisma of ISKCON’s leader and founder Prabhupada.

Yet throughout the world the local ISKCON temples and communities have a great deal of latitude in terms of how they run their own affairs. Individuals and small groups of devotees have sponsored the building of new temples, renovations of older ones, and the planting of new communities meeting in individual houses or rented spaces. Local leaders oversee worship, social activities, and educational services at the temples, and they generally do so with attention to the local needs of their communities. While the actual deity service, texts, and doctrines are shared across all ISKCON communities, great diversity exists in terms of the mood and social functions of the temples. Some temples cater primarily to families and congregational members, others appeal to spiritual seekers or young students. Some temples engage in extensive outreach and evangelism, others are vibrant hubs of social and cultural activities, and others function more like worship halls that are utilized only during weekly temple worship.

ISKCON’s gurus serve as the intermediary leaders between the GBC and the temples. Though initially only Prabhupada served as guru, shortly after his death the pool of gurus expanded exponentially and not without conflict, as noted below (“Issues/Challenges”). Gurus serve as the spiritual elite within ISKCON, initiating new members, blessing and performing weddings, and giving instruction. All are sanctioned by the GBC and act in accordance with its wishes. There is disagreement on the actual number of gurus, with Rochford reporting “more than 80” by 2005 (2007:14), Squarcini and Fizzori seeing eighty in 1993 and seventy in 2001 (2004:26, 80, note 99), and William H. Deadwyler reporting fifty in 2004 (Deadwyler 2004:168). Regardless, enough gurus serve ISKCON that religious power is both centralized within this group but decentralized outside of any one individual or small group. Until recently, all the gurus are were sanyasis, male celibate monks who have dedicated their lives exclusively to Krishna and spreading Krishna Consciousness. Quite recently householder men and women have joined the ranks of gurus as well.

At the base of the movement most ISKCON devotees are congregational members, meaning individuals not living in the movement’s temples. Some formally belong to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as they have taken initiation into the worship of Krishna from one of the movement’s gurus. Others are uninitiated members, those who attend worship and engage in some forms of worship and service but have not been initiated. Today, many congregational members are married. Many of these congregational members (and most members in some North American and British temples) are Indian born Hindus who worship in ISKCON temples but were not members of ISKCON before immigrating to the West. This shift towards participation of householders as congregational members is one of the more remarkable shifts in ISKCON over the years. Sociologist E. Burke Rochford, Jr. has indicated that in 1980, fifty-three percent of the devotees he surveyed had never been married and seventy-three percent had no children. By 1991/1992, only fifteen percent had never been married and only thirty percent had no children (1985:62). Fedrico Squarcini and Eugenio Fizzotti estimate a similar 7:3 ration of householders to celibates among American ISKCON communities (2004:29).

 ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Like many other new religious movements, ISKCON has faced its share of challenges. Many of these trace to problems arising after the death of the charismatic founder, and others are traced to demographic and social shifts within the movement.

The death of Prabhupada proved the most challenging issue for ISKCON in its brief history as a movement. A highly charismatic leader with appeal that was able to reach a diverse audience, the founder left impossibly large shoes to fill, an apt metaphor since images of Prabhupda’s footprints are a common devotional object in ISKCON temples. The conflict over post-charismatic leadership is therefore central to understanding the development of the Hare Krishna movement over the past thirty years.

A complete analysis of the succession of post-charismatic leadership in ISKCON has yet to be written, though several shorter analyses exist (Rochford 2009; Deadwyler 2004). During his life, Prabhupada served as not just founder and organizational leader, but the only guru and initiating master of the movement. Towards the end of his life he appointed intermediary priests serving on his behalf (ritviks) to initiate disciples. Following his death these ritviks declared themselves gurus, the “zonal acharyas,” each leading a geographic region of the world as sole guru. Prabhupada had also empowered the GBC (on which the gurus served, but not in a majority role) the BBT, and other institutions to guide and lead the movement. Many of the gurus proved themselves unable to lead, either corrupt, inept, or both. The gurus and the GBC came into increasing conflict, until eventually the GBC abolished the zonal acharya system and re-exerted itself as the highest authority of the movement. The GBC also expanded the number of gurus so as to limit their individual authority and focus on Krishna Consciousness itself rather than the messenger.

Certainly the darkest episode in the history of ISKCON involves one such failed guru, and centers on the movement’s agrarian commune, the New Vrindavan community outside Moundsville, West Virginia. Originally intended to serve as a utopian ideal community to demonstrate ISKCON’s religious, social, and cultural teachings, New Vrindavan’s leadership had slowly drifted away from the thinking and direction of the rest of the movement, culminating in the expulsion of the community from ISKCON in 1988. Its leader, an early disciple of Prabhupada with the religious name of Bhaktipada, sought to introduce interreligious and explicitly Christian elements into their religious practice, as well as elevate his local leadership as equal to Prabhupada and above the authority of the GBC. Later, several prominent members of the community were accused of participation in various criminal activities and cover-ups, including child abuse, drug running, weapons trafficking, and eventually murder. Bhaktipada was found guilty of federal racketeering charges and sentenced to prison. Excommunicated from ISKCON, he died in 2011. After his removal from power, the community was slowly brought back into the ISKCON fold (Rochford and Bailey 2006).

Despite this challenges and open conflicts remain regarding the issue of leadership. The majority of ISKCON’s members left the movement during the leadership transitions, but some of these have formed alternative Vaishnava communities equally devoted to Krishna Consciousness but not a formal part of ISKCON. This broader Hare Krishna milieu also includes schismatic movements led by gurus who left or were thrown out of ISKCON, as well as those inspired by Prabhupada’s godbrothers (fellow disciples of Prabhupada’s guru Bhaktisiddhanta). Another group has returned to the idea of the ritviks, breaking with Hindu tradition by refusing to accept the continuation of the lineage of living gurus. This sub-movement looks to ritviks as continuing to act as Prabhupada’s emissaries, and hold Prabhupada as a guru accepting new disciples even after his death.

Connected to the notion of changing leadership, the full and inclusive involvement of non-celibate males has been a major challenge to ISKCON. Prabhupada took a extremely conservative view of gender and family, limiting leadership positions to men and counseling women on the whole to look to religious fulfillment through submission to male leaders or as mothers. Women who joined found this approach attractive and even freeing (Palmer 1994), though with time many female devotees challenged their exclusion from leadership, teaching, and oversight positions (Lorenz 2004). Non-celibate householder men similarly found themselves devalued within ISKCON, which generally had valued celibacy and monasticism as the religious ideal (Rochford 2007).

The centrality of celibate men in leadership roles and a generally negative view of women, children, householder men ( that is, families ) resulted in the creation of the gurukula system, a sort of religious boarding school for the children born into Krishna Consciousness. The celibate leaders intended the system to help prevent over-attachment of children to their parents and allow them to focus on Krishna bhakti, and the gurukulas also freed parents to focus on service to the Society rather than child raising. Yet the gurukulas generally failed their students, who have reported profoundly negative experiences. Several prominent cases of mistreatment, criminal neglect, and even child abuse led to a series of court cases and the eventual shuttering of many of the gurukula s and a reformation of the few that remained (Deadwyler 2004) .

Slowly, ISKCON has made room for greater involvement of women and householder men. Rochford traces this development to labor shortages within ISKCON and the need to use the volunteer talents of women (2007:132-33). In 1998, a woman was chosen to serve on the GBC, and several women have became temple presidents (Rochford 2007:136). Simultaneously, ISKCON leaders have reached out to the South Asian community and welcomed its non-initiated congregational householders as members of the movement. Such involvement has provided financial stability and greater legitimacy to the movement, which increasingly identifies itself with Hinduism as a way to disassociate itself from the notion of ISKCON as a new religious movement or cult. This denominationalization of ISKCON represents the future of the movement as diasporic South Asians become the numerical majority of the movement and ISKCON increasingly associates itself with the Indian diaspora and more normative Hinduism. It remains to be seen what elements of ISKCON’s first generation, so marked by the American counterculture, will remain within this still-transforming religious movement.

REFERENCES

Bhaktivedanta, Swami A.C. Prabhupada. 1977. The Science of Self-Realization. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Bryant, Edwin, and Maria Ekstrand, eds. 2004. The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. New York: Columbia University Press.

Deadwyler, William H. 2004. “Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts: Reform and Renewal in ISKCON.” Pp. 149-69 in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand. New York: Columbia University Press.

Frazier, Jessica. 2011. The Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies. London: Bloomsbury

Goswami, Satsvarupa Dasa. 1980. A Lifetime in Preparation: India 1896-1965: A Biography of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Judah, J. Stillson. 1974. Hare Krishna and the Counterculture. New York: Wiley.

Knott, Kim. 1986. My Sweet Lord: The Hare Krishna Movement. Wellingborough, U.K.: Aquarian.

Lorenz, Ekkehard. 2004. “The Guru, Mayavadins, and Women: Tracing the Origins of Selected Polemical Statements in the Works of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.” Pp. 112-28 in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand. New York: Columbia University Press.

Palmer, Susan J. 1994. Moon Sisters, Krishna Mothers, Rajneesh Lovers: Women’s Roles on New Religions. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Rochford, E. Burke, Jr. 2009. “Succession, Religious Switching, and Schism in the Hare Krishna Movement.” Pp. 265-86 in Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide, edited by James R. Lewis and Sarah M Lewis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rochford, E. Burke, Jr. 2007. Hare Krishna Transformed. New York: New York University Press.

Rochford, E. Burke, Jr. 1985. Hare Krishna in America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Schweig, Graham M. 2004. “Krishna, the Intimate Deity.” Pp. 13-30 in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand. New York: Columbia University Press.

Squarcini, Federico, and Eugenio Fizzotti. 2004. Hare Krishna. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

Zeller, Benjamin E. 2012. “Food Practices, Culture, and Social Dynamics in the Hare Krishna Movement.” Pp. 681-702 in Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, edited by Carole M. Cusack and Alex Norman. Leiden: Brill.

Zeller, Benjamin E. 2010. Prophets and Protons: New Religious Movements and Science in Late-Twentieth Century America. New York: New York University Press.

Publication Date:
27 August 2013

INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST TIMELINE

1954 (May 31):  Thomas (Kip) McKean was born in Indianapolis, Indiana.

1976:  McKean married Elena Garcia-Bengochea.

1979:  Kip McKean became minister of the Lexington Church of Christ in Lexington, Massachusetts, which later became the Boston Church of Christ (Boston Movement).

1988:  Crossroads Church of Christ severed ties with the Boston Movement. 

1992 :  Kip McKean wrote “Revolution through Restoration Part I: From Jerusalem to Rome: From Boston to Moscow.” The Boston Movement was renamed the International Churches of Christ (ICOC)

1993:  ICOC established Discipleship Publications International

1994 (February 4):  World Sector Leaders of the ICOC gathered for the signing of the Evangelization Proclamation , written by Kip McKean.

1994:  McKean wrote “Revolution through Restoration Part II: The 20 th Century Church.” ICOC established the Kingdom News Network. 

1994:  Indianapolis Church of Christ left the ICOC movement.

1996:  REVEAL, an organization of former members of the ICOC, was established.

2001:  McKean was asked to resign from his position as Lead Evangelist of the Los Angeles International Church of Christ. He took a sabbatical from church leadership to engage in spiritual reflection.

2002:  McKean was asked by church leaders across the globe to resign his position as the World Missions Evangelist for the International Churches of Christ. He resigned and apologized publically to ICOC congregations. 

2003:  Henry Kriete (London ICOC leader) posted “Honest to God: Revolution through Repentance and Freedom in Christ.” 

2003:  McKean wrote “From Babylon to Zion: Revolution through Restoration III.”

2003-2004:  Leaders of the ICOC sectors came together to dissolve the ICOC leadership structure and began establishing a loose brotherhood or “family of ICOC churches” that composed a larger network of affiliated ICOC churches (now the ICOC Cooperation of Churches). 

2005:  “Brothers’ Statement to Kip McKean” publically rebuked McKean, asking McKean, now at the Portland Church, to repent of his sins of pride and arrogance. 

2006-2007:  Kip and Elena McKean and small group of members moved from the Portland Church of Christ to establish the City of Angels International Christian Church (ICC) the “Sold Out Discipling Movement.”  

2008:  ICC Portland Church led by Steven Johnson moved away from McKean and the ICC and back to the ICOC Family of Churches.

2012-2013:  McKean established the non-accredited International College of Christian Ministries.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

Thomas (Kip) McKean [See photo of McKean at right] is the founder of the Boston Movement/International Churches of Christ(ICOC) and the more recent International Christian Church (ICC)/Soldout Discipling Movement. McKean was born on May 31, 1954 in Indianapolis. His father was an admiral in the U.S. Navy, and McKean lived in several states during his high school years and graduated from the University of Florida. It was there that McKean was baptized into the Crossroads Church of Christ (then associated with the mainline Church of Christ) movement in Gainesville, Florida and was exposed to the discipling philosophy that shaped the core beliefs and practices of his Boston/ICOC/now ICC movement (McKean 1992).

McKean married his wife, Elena Garcia-Bengochea, in 1976, and the couple had a daughter and two sons. Elena was born in Cuba in 1955, immigrated in 1959 to the U.S., and grew up in Gainesville, Florida. She was baptized into the Crossroads Church at the University of Florida during her freshman year. Elena has functioned as a Women’s Ministry Leader in the ICOC and now in the ICC/Soldout Discipling Movement. McKean’s brother, Randy McKean, and his sister-in-law, Kay McKean, were also deeply involved in the founding of the ICOC and top leaders in the organizational structure of the movement. Currently Randy and Kay are a Lead Evangelist and Women’s Ministry Leader in the ICOC Cooperative Churches.

In 1979, with the support of a group of thirty committed members of the Lexington Church of Christ, Kip McKean founded the Boston Church of Christ, later renamed the International Churches of Christ. In 1992, McKean wrote “Revolution through Restoration Part I: From Jerusalem to Rome: From Boston to Moscow,” a document that recounts the history and growth of his movement and reaffirms their “Revolution in Christianity – a return to the doctrines and lifestyles of the first century church.” In the telling of the history of the movement, McKean paints a story of unique Christian conviction and revolutionary commitment as he lifts up his family heritage, recalling an ancestor who signed the Declaration of Independence: “Thomas McKean,” who “signed the Declaration of Independence…was the President of the Congress of Confederation, the highest office in the land.” McKean (1992) writes he “was inspired by those who refused to compromise and were willing to sacrifice everything” for “the worthy cause.” His heroes became John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesus, who McKean describes as paying “the ultimate price” for their dreams. In 1994, Kip, Elena, Randy, and Kay McKean, as well as other core leaders of the movement, signed their “Evangelization Proclamation,” a visual performance of democratic evangelical revolution through a contemporary Christian Restoration Movement.

In 1994, McKean’s movement claimed to have 146 churches with over 75,000 attending services (Evangelization Proclamation1994) [See the Evangelation Proclamation document at right]. By the year 2000, the ICOC leadership claimed to have fifteen churches that had over 3,000 “in attendance.” The movement boasted of representation in major cities like Boston, Chicago, New York City, Atlanta, Mexico City, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Manila, Moscow, and Kiev, and of hundreds of smaller “plantings” across the globe (ICOC 2000). However, in the midst of these claims of growth, power struggles and concerns with the authoritative structure of the church caused internal conflict.

The Indianapolis Church of Christ left the movement in 1994, and by the turn of the century McKean had come under sharp criticism by several top leaders in the ICOC movement (e.g. Kriete letter of 2003). McKean was discipled by church leaders regarding his “pride” and “arrogance,” took a brief “sabbatical” from leadership, and then resigned his position as the leader of the world movement in 2002. In 2003, as regional and sector ICOC leaders were contemplating how to approach the dissolution of the movement, McKean wrote, “From Babylon to Zion: Revolution through Restoration Part III,” a reflection on the condition of the ICOC movement, a confession of his own mistakes/sins, and his intentions for a revival of his vision of a restoration movement. He moved on soon after to lead the Portland Church of Christ and then reestablish his vision through the International Christian Church or Soldout Discipling movement (ICC).

As the unified ICOC movement came apart, top leaders and many original ICOC congregations maintained the ICOC name, establishing a “family of churches” that presented themselves as working in “cooperation” with one another and rejecting the centralized authority structure of McKean’s vision (See the ICOC Cooperative Church website). McKean took roots in another direction, working to rebuild his movement, first in Portland Oregon, and then in Los Angeles with the newly formed International Christian Church Soldout Discipling Movement. McKean’s presentation of the ICC Soldout Discipling Movement/ICC as exceptional regarding growth and evangelical energy mirrors the early Boston/ICOC narrative of heroic effort and fast growing evangelical success through discipling. McKean’s ICC movement is attempting to revive their world missionary outreach, claiming the ICC movement to be the “fastest spreading Christian movement in the world,” and noting “60 congregations in 26 nations” (See McKean’s page with the City of Angels ICC).

In a recent move to perform legitimacy and obtain funds for his vision, McKean established a non-accredited degree-granting private college in 2012-2013, the International College of Christian Ministries. Tuition for each (three) four month trimester in a calendar year was set at $2,000 (Washington D.C. ICC 2013). The ICCM bestowed the degree of Doctorate to Kip McKean, noted on their website as the Founder and President of the ICCM. Elena McKean was named the Dean of Women.

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

The ICOC’s mission was deeply tied to their belief that they would “evangelize the world in one generation” through their discipling system, a practice born from the discipling philosophy that took shape in the Crossroads Church of Christ (CCOC) in Gainesville, Florida. In the late 1960s, CCOC’s Chuck Lucas became the force behind the University of Florida’s Campus Advance discipling practices that involved an intensive Bible study training study, daily submission and confession of sins to someone with more time in the church (a “Discipler” or “Prayer Partner”) and active proselytizing and discipling of younger (meaning time in the church) Christians. The seeds of the Crossroads/Boston Movement evangelical beliefs and practices of discipling can be found in Robert Coleman’s 1963 publication, The Master Plan of Evangelism.

In his 1992 treatise, Revolution through Restoration Part I, McKean explains the nature of the ICOC’s version of discipling. He writes that he developed a series of nine Bible studies on the “first principles” (Hebrews 6:1-3) and that “members of the church were called to memorize these studies and then teach others to become Christians.” He stresses the study on “Discipleship,” as the most impacting: “from my study of the Scripture, I taught what was clear in Acts 11:26: SAVED=CHRISTIAN=DISCIPLE, simply meaning that you cannot be saved and you cannot be a true Christian without being a disciple also.” McKean states his purpose here was to “draw a sharp biblical distinction between the Lexington (later named Boston) Church of Christ and all other groups.” While members of the Boston/ICOC movement were told that individual Christians outside the group may be saved upon inspection of their daily beliefs and practices, the leadership also made clear that anyone who was a true disciple would want to be part of the ICOC movement and join the revolution. Leaders in the movement also stressed the unique diverse racial/ethnic character of their churches as they highlighted racial division in contemporary society (e.g. Ferguson 1997:85; Jenkins 2005).

McKean and the ICOC claimed exclusive status as “God’s true and only modern movement” and the “only church with a plan to plant churches in every nation of the world” (Jubilee 2000). The unified ICOC movement routinely noted those in attendance and not membership numbers, which gave the impression of fast growth to match the ICOC’s claims. At its height in the 1990s, the leadership boasted of over 100,000 disciples baptized worldwide (Jenkins 2005).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

To be a member of the Boston/ICOC church, an individual had to pledge a commitment to McKean’s version of discipling and complete McKean’s First Principles Bible study series. They had to then be baptized in the church (even if previously baptized in another Christian tradition), commit to proselytizing in daily life, engage in mandatory interaction with a Disciple or “Prayer Partner,” and attend regular meetings with smaller discipleship groups, generally composed of people from similar life positions (married, singles, etc.). Married couples met as well with husband and wife teams who offered discipling/marriage counseling. Disciplers were “Older Christians” (meaning time in the ICOC church) and assigned according to gender. Women did speak and testify at large events and services, but the focus of women’s discipling and leadership efforts and authority was primarily over other women. In many local ICOC churches disciples were broken into smaller Discipling Groups (“D-groups”) that met weekly in their larger discipleship “Family Groups” composed of individuals from their local congregation. While officially a hierarchical mechanism meant to offer encouragement as well as correction and rebuking, manifestations of discipling in individual relationships varied from congregation to congregation and were inevitably shaped by individual character and status/time spent in the movement (Jenkins 2005).

Weekly services in the ICOC movement were held generally on Sunday and Wednesday evenings [See ICOC religious service at right]. Smaller gatherings of family and other groups during the week were common, as were large events where hundreds of members in community sectors or larger geographic regions would come together under themed gatherings like “Marriage Enrichment Day” or similar events for singles or children (Kingdom Kids ministry). The current ICC movement offers similar types of services and events, for example Women’s and Men’s Day retreats and weekend retreats for single members. In the early years of the unified movement, local congregations rented spaces in hotels, convention centers, schools and other venues rather than purchasing property. Members were encouraged to bring friends and possible converts to large regional and zone events to worship, watch Kingdom News Network films, and engage in weekend retreat workshops. Movement films and media were often featured at these events to showcase the unique power of discipling relationships and the exceptional growth of the ICOC (Jenkins 2005).

In the years of the unified ICOC movement, members were expected to give ten percent of their incomes (tithing) to the church as well as contribute two times a year to special collections that could represent anywhere up to twenty times one’s regular tithing obligations. In some congregations, monies were collected in small discipleship groups to insure cooperation. In the current ICC/Soldout Discipling movement, members are still expected to tithe, in addition to giving to special missions contributions throughout the year.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

 Before the unified ICOC movement fell, Kip McKean held the top leadership position as the World Missions Evangelist and Elena McKean was the Women’s Ministry leader. Following in leadership position were World Sector leadership couples (Evangelist and Women’s Ministry leaders), that were broken into smaller geographic sectors led by an Evangelist and Women’s Ministry Leader. Local church congregations were also led by married couples, as well as several paid ministerial leaders who ran specific ministries (such as the families ministry and singles ministry) and unpaid staff members in charge of youth and teen ministries (Jenkins 2005). The discipling structure mechanism supported the hierarchical nature of the leadership. The current ICC Soldout Discipling movement appears to follow a similar organizational structure.

The current ICOC Cooperation of Churches, a loose brotherhood or “family of ICOC churches,” has an organizational structure that resembles a more democratic form. Their website in 2016 states they are composed of “657 individual congregations in 32 Regional Families in more than 153 nations.” Regions (e.g. West Africa, China, Eastern Europe, Canada, Florida, New York) appoint “delegates” who carry a vote at annual ICOC meetings, conduct regular meetings with leaders in geographic regions, and choose leaders and members of service ministry teams. The current formal leadership structure continues to support male delegates in the role of Evangelist, and women as Women’s Ministry leaders.

The ICOC has its own publishing company, Discipleship Publications International, a video/movie wing, Kingdom News Network, and a humanitarian wing, HOPE Worldwide (acronym for “Helping Other People Everywhere”) that they present as providing care to children in orphanages and offering medical care for the poor and aging across the globe. The current ICC Soldout Movement has developed a similar media wing, Discipleship Media , and a film-producing entity, Good News Network. The ICC/Soldout movement also established Mercy Worldwide as its charity organization, based on the ICOC’s HOPE Worldwide model.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Ex-members, journalists, psychologists, campus ministers, and exit counselors have labeled the Boston Church of Christ/ICOC a dangerous cult. Examples can be found in Steven Hassan’s book, Combatting Cult Mind Control (1988:114-21), Giambalvo and Rosedale’s edited volume published by the American Family Foundation, The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ (1996), and Maurice Barnett’s The Discipling Movement: A Study of the Neo-Crossroads Philosophy Among Churches of Christ (1989). ABC News reporter Barbara Walters of 20/20 (October 15, 1993) introduced the movement in a piece titled “Believe It or Else,” by noting they found “former church members with dramatic stories of coercion and brainwashing and scare tactics.” Campus Chaplains and students at Boston University, together with the Rev. Robert Watts Thornburg, Dean of the Marsh Chapel at Boston University, produced a pamphlet noting that the Boston Church had been officially banned from the campus and stating that the “methods” of the BCC had been “destructive to many Boston University students, and to others.” The pamphlet lists the dangerous techniques as

“Recruitment works best by deception and harassment”
“Indoctrination beats learning…and no questions asked
“Your time is no longer your own, and neither is your money”
“You can do without your family and your friends…they’ll replace them.”
“It’s time to put you to work now!…members are expected to work at pulling in as many new people as possible.”

Ex-members continue to offer harsh criticism of McKean’s discipling movement as too authoritarian, controlling and prideful.

 McKean’s efforts to evangelize the world in one generation have consistently been shaped by dissent and criticism from within primarily aimed at his claims of greatness, exclusivity, and the authoritative and demanding nature of discipling and the ICOC’s centralized leadership structure. Early in the history of the ICOC (1988), the Crossroads Church of Christ disassociated from the Boston Movement. In 1994, even as McKean and others signed their Evangelization Proclamation, the Indianapolis ICOC congregation split from the movement because of disagreements over core ICOC principles and leadership disagreements. In March of 2000, leaders David Medrano ad Natercia Alves left the Madrid Spain church.

In 2002, a charismatic leader and author in McKean’s movement, Gordon Ferguson, published a book together with ICOC leader Wyndam Shaw titled, Golden Rule Leadership, a text that challenged McKean’s leadership hierarchy and “one-over-one” discipling practices. In 2003, Henry Kriete, the leader of ICOC’s London church posted an “open letter” to the “elders, teachers, and evangelists” in the movement. His letter, titled “Honest to God: Revolution through Repentance and Freedom in Christ,” captured feelings of unrest and a need for a peaceful revolution in the ICOC. These involved seeing “Four Systematic Evils” at work in the movement: a “corrupted hierarchy,” an “obsession with numbers,” “shameful arrogance,” and “seduction by money.” Kriete stressed the authoritarian nature of many ICOC relationships: “We have become a religious hierarchy [with McKean at the top] that has created, fostered, and sustained a culture of control and dependence on men, rather than freedom.” Kriete also charged that the evangelical duties placed on women in the church made them “conflicted,” writing that “our western model of the ‘total woman’ has by and large been forced upon almost all of our women in the full time ministry.”

McKean’s response and impressions of these criticisms and dynamics can be found in his 2003 essay, “From Babylon to Zion: Revolution through Restoration III,” where he writes about the state of the movement, his “sabbatical” from leadership, his resignation, the condition and dissolution of ICOC churches across the globe, and plans for rebuilding his Restoration movement and reaffirming the importance of discipling. McKean rebuilt his vision in Portland Oregon, and then in Los Angeles with his International Christian Church Soldout Discipling Movement.

The ICOC Family of Churches now claims to have abandoned the pride, boasting, exclusivity, and heavy centralized authoritative leadership of the unified movement and adopted more of a sense of “voluntary cooperation and collaboration by congregations” (Ross 2012). Recognizing the controversy around discipling and the leadership hierarchy of the early years, the ICOC presents its congregations as loosely tied together around a strong evangelical core that acknowledges a need for discipling as articulated in early ICOC top leader Gordon Ferguson’s 1997 book, Discipling: God’s Plan to Train and Transform his People and his new edition of The Power of Discipling (2001). Both are books advertised on the ICOC’s Discipleship Today Media Store. Current leaders in the ICOC stress that they recognize discipling in the early years of the movement was too authoritative and claim the reformed ICOC has abandoned excessive control and influence over new members, as well as its claim to exclusive one true church status (Ross 2012).

In addition to the ICOC Family of Churches and McKean’s ICC/Soldout Discipling movement, some smaller local congregations born during the unified ICOC years evolved into their own independent churches.

IMAGES

Image #1: Image is photograph of Kip McKean delivering an address at the London ICOC church.
Image #2: Image is a photogaph of the ICOC’s Evangelation Proclamation document issued in 1994 asserting that the church would establish a church in every major nation in the world within six years.
Image #3: Image is a photograph of an ICOC religious service in Boston, Massachusetts.

REFERENCES

ABC News 20/20. 1993. Believe It or Else. Transcript #1344.

Boston University Students. n.d. Do you Know who you were just Taking to? Pamphlet produced with the cooperation and support of the Rev. Robert Watts Thornburg, Dean of Marsh Chapel at Boston University.

Barnett, Maurice. 1989. The Discipling Movement: A Study of the Neo-Crossroads Philosophy Among Churches of Christ. Second Edition. Gospel Anchor Publishing.

Coleman, Robert E. 1963. The Master Plan of Evangelism. New York: Revell

Ferguson, Gordon F. 1997. Discipling: God’s Plan to Train and Transform his People. Woburn: Discipleship Publications International.

ICOC. Jubilee 2000: Even Greater Things. November/December, 2000. Published by Kingdom News Network.

Jenkins, Kathleen E. 2005. Awesome Families: The Promise of Healing Relationships in the International Churches of Christ. New Brunswick Rutgers University Press.

Kriete, Henry 2003. “Honest to God: Revolution through Repentance and Freedom in Christ.” Accessed from http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/people/hkriete.htm on February 27, 2016.

McKean, Kip. 2003. “From Babylon to Zion: Revolution through Restoration Part III.”

McKean, Kip. 1994. “Revolution through Restoration Part II: The 20 th Century Church.” Upside Down Magazine (Kingdom News Network).

McKean, Kip. 1992. “Revolution through Restoration Part I: From Jerusalem to Rome, from Boston to Moscow.” Upside Down Magazine (Kingdom News Network).

McKean, Thomas. “Kip McKean: Preacher, Missionary, Theologian, Reformer, Humanitarian.” Accessed from http://www.kipmckean.com on February 10, 2016.

Ross, Bobby. September 2012. “Revisiting the Boston Movement: ICOC Growing Again After Crisis.” The Christian Chronicle. Accessed from http://www.christianchronicle.org/article/revisiting-the-boston-movement-icoc-growing-again-after-crisis on 10 February 2016.

Washington DC. International Christian Church Newletter. Vol 2(5). February 10, 2013. “ The International College of Christian Ministries.”

Post Date:
15 March 2016

ISKCON TIMELINE

1896:  International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) founder Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada was born as Abhay Charan De, in Calcutta, India.

1932:  Prabhupada took initiation from his guru Bhaktisiddhanta, becoming a disciple of Krishna.

1936:  Bhaktisiddhanta charged Prabhupada with spreading Krishna consciousness in the West.

1944:  Prabhupada began publishing Back to Godhead, an English-language publication.

1959:  Prabhupada took sanyasa order, becoming a monk and dedicating himself full time to spreading Krishna Consciousness.

1965:  Prabhupada traveled to America.

1966:  ISKCON was founded in New York City; Prabhupada initiated his first disciples; ISKCON became part of hippie counterculture.

1966-1968:  ISKCON spread to other major North American cities (San Francisco, Boston, Toronto, and Los Angeles) and globally (India, England, Germany, and France).

1968:  ISKCON members founded New Vrindaban, a rural commune in West Virginia that later became a source of conflict.

1968-1969:  Prabhupada met with members of The Beatles; George Harrison became a disciple; the Hare Krishna movement became part of transatlantic musical and artistic landscape.

1970:  The ISKCON Governing Board Commission (GBC) and Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) were established.

1977:  Prabhupada died.

1977-1987:  A series of succession conflicts resulted in schisms and a significant loss of membership.

1984-1987:  A reform movement emerged within ISKCON.

1985-1987:  The New Vrindaban community separated from ISKCON; criminal charges were filed against its leaders.

1987:  The GBC endorsed the position of the Reform movement

1991 The ISKCON Foundation was created to build bridges with Hindu immigrants to America.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

The story of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement, tightly interweaves with the story of its founder, the religious teacher (swami  A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada. (Image at right) Born Abhay Charan De, in Calcutta, India, the future founder of ISKCON witnessed firsthand the modernization of India and the effects of British colonial rule. His autobiographic reflections and official hagiography reveal that he was both enamored of the tremendous social, cultural, and technological change occurring around him as well as attracted to the traditional mores of his family, faith, and culture (Zeller 2012:73-81). According to his biography, Abhay grew up across the street from a Vaishnava temple, a Hindu sect dedicated to the worship of Krishna. The Chaitanya (Gaudya) Vaishnava branch of Hinduism practiced at the temple, which would later become the form that Abhay Charan De accepted and of which he become the greatest proponent, is a monotheistic type of Hinduism. It envisions Krishna as the supreme form of God who creates and maintains the cosmos, and who is both personal and universal God (Goswami 1980).

As a child of high caste middle class parents, Abhay attended a British colonial school and college, earned a Bachelors degree, and became a chemist working for a pharmaceutical company. He married and had children, all the while continuing his personal religious devotions. In 1922, he met a swami in the Chaitanya Vaishnava lineage named Bhaktisiddhanta, and ten years later he took initiation from Bhaktisiddhanta and became a disciple. Abhay was later granted the honorific Bhaktivedanta on account of his religious erudition and dedication. Bhaktisiddhanta charged his colonially educated disciple with spreading Krishna consciousness among English-speakers (Knott 1986:26-31).

Bhaktivedanta did just this, at first part time as a householder through public speeches and a new English-language newspaper hefounded in 1944, Back to Godhead. After arriving in America over two decades later, Bhaktivedanta would restart Back to Godhead, which eventually became the official organ of ISKCON, its major publication, and the literary means by which the movement propagated itself. Bhaktivedanta also began translating sacred Vaishnava scriptures into English, notably the Bhagavadgita and Bhagavata Purana.

In keeping with Hindu religious norms and Indian social norms, in 1959 Bhaktivedanta took the religious order of sanyasa, becoming a monastic and leaving behind his familial obligations. He then dedicated himself to the fulltime religious propagation of Krishna consciousness and laid the groundwork for his travel to the English speaking West. He did so in 1965, arriving in Boston and then founding a religious ministry in the bohemian areas of Manhattan. Finding limited interest among the middle class, Bhaktivedanta discovered that his religious message primarily appealed to members of the counterculture who had rejected middle class American social, cultural, and religious norms (Rochford 1985). Bhaktivedanta rededicated himself to outreach to this segment of the population. E. Burke Rochford refers to this process as frame alignment (or realignment), and represented an intentional outreach effort to members of the counterculture. This led to tensions later when ISKCON began to appeal primarily to South Asian transnationals (Rochford 2018), as well as counter-alignments such as Krishna West (Karapanagiotis 2021). His disciples took to calling him Prabhupada, an honorific that Bhaktisiddhanta had also used.

Prabhupada founded ISKCON in New York City in 1966. Within months his own disciples and converts began to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the American hippie counterculture, first to San Francisco and then to other major North American cities. Within two years of founding ISKCON, Prabhupada and his disciples had planted temples throughout North America and Europe, making inroads in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Canada, as well as establishing an outreach in India itself. ISKCON members also established a series of rural communes, the best known of which was New Vrindaban, in West Virginia. Most members were full-time disciples, dedicating themselves to propagating Krishna Consciousness and living in the temples and communes. Some began to marry, and Prabhupada blessed their marriages. A divide between married householders and fulltime monastic members would eventually cause tensions within the movement. During this time ISKCON also made inroads among the creative class, with George Harrison and John Lennon of The Beatles becoming enamored of the Hare Krishnas and their philosophy. [Image at right] ISKCON had become a recognized part of the transatlantic youth counterculture of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Knott 1986).

In the 1970s, Prabhupada laid the groundwork for the institutionalization of his charismatic leadership. He founded the Governing Board Commission (GBC) and Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT), two legal entities that were charged respectively with managing the movement and literary output of the founder. In the remaining seven years before his death, Prabhupada granted increasingly more authority to the GBC and BBT, though as founder and undisputed leader of ISKCON he routinely acted independently of the institution and even directed them on occasion. Though Prabhupada attempted to groom members of the GBC and BBT to manage the movement, few of its members had any administrative experience and most had been countercultural hippies only years earlier. A conflicting set of instructions regarding religious, as opposed to bureaucratic, authority sowed the seeds of later discord after Prabhpada’s death (see below, Issues/Challenges).

The decade after Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada’s death in 1977 was characterized by a series of succession conflicts. Competing forces within ISKCON envisioned alternative directions for the movement, and many of the leaders were incapable of assuming the mantle Prabhupada had left. Many members of ISKCON’S GBC sought to refocus on the monastic strand within the tradition, disparaging and often ignoring the increasingly numerically significant householders. Financial problems led some members of the movement to approve of unethical and even illegal fund raising strategies, and several of the religious gurus became involved in sexual or drug-related scandals. It was a dark period for many members of ISKCON, and the movement shed over half of its adherents in the two decades that followed (Rochford 1985:221-55; Rochford 2007:1-16).

The debacle at New Vrindaban (explored below, under Issues/Challenges), a series of conflicts over religious gurus, poor leadership by the GBC, accusations of child abuse in the ISKCON schools, and several well publicized falls from grace by Prabhupada’s hand-picked successors resulted in a decade of numerical decline and soul searching by members of the Hare Krishna movement. A reform movement began to emerge within ISKCON during the mid-1980s calling for better oversight, clearer ethical standards for the leaders, and increased participation of householders and women in the leadership of ISKCON. In 1987, the GBC endorsed most of the proposals of ISKCON reform movement, among them abolishing the “zonal acharya system” that had created regional fiefdoms wherein individual gurus functioned as sole religious leaders without oversight (Deadwyler 2004).

In recent decades, ISKCON has stabilized under the leadership of a more professional and broader based GBC, as well as individual temples that have empowered laypeople, householders, and families rather than solely relying on monastic elites. Some of the current issues facing the Hare Krishna movement in the twenty-first century are the relation of ISKCON to broader Hinduism and the Indian diasporic community and the acculturation and education of second and third generation members.

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

The Hare Krishna movement must be understood as a form of the Chaitanya (Gaudya) school of Vaishnavism, a monotheistic branch of Hinduism tracing its origin to the sixteenth century reforms of the religious guru Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1533). As a Vaishnava tradition, IKSCON falls within the largest of the three major schools of Hinduism, focusing on the veneration of Vishnu as supreme God. [Image at right] (The other major schools are Shaivism, worshipping Shiva, and Shaktism, venerating Shakti, the divine mother.) Hinduism is a quite diverse tradition, and because the notion of Hinduism as a unified religion is quite new and in many ways foreign to actual Hindu self-understandings (the term was first imposed on Hindus by Muslims and then Christians) one can make relatively few generalizations about the tradition as a whole. Hindus accept the doctrines of karma and reincarnation, the notion of unified cosmic law (dharma), beliefs in vast cosmic cycles of creation and destruction, and hold that there are multiple goals within life that culminate in the quest for self-understanding and spiritual freedom (moksha). Importantly, Hindus believe that the gods incarnate in physical form as avatars in order to accomplish divine work on Earth. Foremost are the avatars of Vishnu, notably Krishna and Rama as described in the Hindu epics of the Mahabharata, of which the Bhagavadgita is a part, the Ramayana, and the devotional text of the Bhagavata Purana. Hindus also hold as central the ideal of the guru, the spiritual master who takes disciples and teaches them how to seek spiritual self-fulfillment and salvation. All of these basic Hindu beliefs carry over into Vaishnavism, the Chaitanya school, and ISKCON specifically (Frazier 2011).

The Chaitanya school is part of the bhakti or devotional path of Hinduism, a path that cuts across the different schools of Hindu practice and has long been one of the most popular forms of Hindu practice. Bhakti practitioners center their religious lives on the ideal of devotion to their chosen God, serving the divine through worship, prayer, song, social service, and study. Members of bhakti groups who become initiated as formal devotees often vow to perform specific means of devotion, including set numbers of prayers or forms of worship. In the case of ISKCON, initiated devotees also take new Vaishnava names referring to their divine service.

The Hare Krishna movement and other branches of the Chaitanya tradition depart from most other forms of Hinduism in terms of understanding Krishna as the true nature of the divine, or the supreme personality of Godhead (to use the language most often heard within the movement itself). [Image at right] This reverses the more common belief held by most Hindus that Krishna was one among several avatars or appearances of Vishnu. As Indologist and expert on the Vaishnava tradition Graham Schweig explains, “the Chaitanyaites consider Krishna as the ultimate transcendent Lord at the very center of the godhead from whom the majestic and powerful cosmic Vishnu emanates. Krishna is known as the purnavatara, ‘full descent of the deity’” (Schweig 2004:17). In other words, members of the Hare Krishna movement look to Krishna as the true and absolute nature of the divine as well as the specific appearance of the divine who took form in ancient India as an avatar. Adherents of the Chaitanya school also distinguish themselves from other Hindus by regarding the founder himself, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, as an incarnation of Krishna.

ISKCON devotees are monotheistic, believing that the other divinities of Hinduism are mere demigods in service of Krishna, and they worship Krishna in the various forms that he takes. Yet ISKCON theology also recognizes that Krishna exists in a binary pairing of Radha-Krishna, where Radha is the female consort and lover of the male Krishna, the cowgirl (gopi) who symbolizes the devotee himself or herself in seeking intimate connection to the divine. Devotees venerate other avatars, associates, and saintly devotees of Krishna, such as Rama, Balaram, Chaitanya, and the sacred basil plant (tulasi) that adherents believe is an Earthly incarnation of one of Krishna’s associates on the spiritual realm.

One of the most important aspects of ISKCON beliefs is the centrality of the idea of the Vedas, Vedic knowledge, and Vedism. Prabhupada and others referred to the tradition as a “Vedic science” and envisioned the Society as propagating Vedic norms in the modern world. The Vedas [Image at right] are the ancient sacred texts of India, the origin, dating, and province of which are hotly contested by scholars, practitioners, and even politicians. Like other Hindus, devotees believe that the Vedas are the essence of dharma : timeless truths recorded by ancient sages and indicating the basic truths and underlying law of the universe, the structuring of society, the purpose of living, and the nature of the divine (Frazier 2011). ISKCON takes a broad view of the Vedic corpus as including the Puranas, Bhagavadgita, and other later sources, since they perceive these texts as part of the same religious and textual tradition as the earliest Vedic sources.

Prabhupada and his earliest disciples positioned ISKCON as Vedic and in opposition to what they saw as decadent and materialistic Western (non-Vedic) culture, capturing much of the spirit of the counterculture and fusing it with Prabhupada’s anti-imperialist Indian perspective. Some elements of contemporary ISKCON retain this highly twofold manner of envisioning society as Vedic (good) vs. non-Vedic (bad), but other members of ISKCON have synthesized the ideal of living in accordance with the Vedas within life in the contemporary West. This process can be seen in the development and transformation of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a self-described research branch of ISKCON dedicated to demonstrating the value of Vedic science within a modern world. As Oliver Zambon and Thomas Aechtner have argued in their analysis of the Bhaktivedanta Institute (2022), more recent ISKCON leaders have sought to emphasize the compatibility of Western epistemologies and science with that of ISKCON, and taken a more reconciliatory approach as compared to the earlier hostility of the movement towards Western norms (Zeller 2010).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

The central ritual of ISKCON is that of chanting the name of God in the form of the mahamantra (great mantra): Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Rama Rama, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. [Image at right] This mahamantra not only gave the movement its unofficial but most common name but also links ISKCON back to the theological developments of Chaitanya, who predicted predicated his sixteenth century reforms on chanting, as well as Bhaktisiddhanta, who emphasized chanting as well. Chaitanya, Bhaktisiddhanta, and Prabhupada all emphasized that chanting was not only supremely pleasing to God and spiritually efficacious but also easy to do, universally available, and fit for contemporary times. Initiated members of ISKCON vow to chant sixteen rounds of the Hare Krishna mahamantra each day, where each round includes 108 repetitions of the mantra. Some devotees do this in temples, others at home shrines, and still others in gardens, parks, workplaces, or during daily commutes. Chanting, along with following the regulative principles (no illicit sex, intoxicants, meat eating, or gambling) serve as the heart of religious practice in Krishna Consciousness (Bhaktivedanta 1977).

Prabhupada also emphasized book distribution, and the donation or selling of literature remains one of the most a common forms of religious practice in ISKCON outside of chanting. [Image at right] In the early days of the movement ISKCON devotees made a name for themselves selling books, magazines, and pamphlets in streets, parks, and, most famously, airports. The movement was lampooned for these practices in such American popular culture fixtures as Airplane! and The Muppet Movie. A series of court cases in the 1980 limited the ability to engage in book distribution in public places. With the aging of the movement, public activities such as book distribution, chanting, and preaching (collectively called sankirtana) have become less common.

Increasingly, ISKCON members look to their religious involvement as centered on weekly attendance at the temple and performing deity worship there. While temple worship certainly extends to the earliest days of the movement, the advent of congregational membership and the demographic shifts that have made congregationl membership the norm has led to weekly temple attendance becoming central. In the United States, where Protestant norms have shaped the environment, ISKCON temples hold weekly worship on Sundays. During deity worship at temples, Hare Krishna devotees engage in a ritualized form of devotion (bhakti), including service to Krishna (puja), and viewing of Krishna (darshan). ISKCON follows standard Vaishnava and broader Hindu worship norms with some minor additions, such as salutations to ISKCON’s founder Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada through chants and spoken prayers.

Temple worship normally ends in a communal meal, and such meals, “feasts,” as ISKCON advertisements have called them since 1965, often attract a diverse range of attendees. Certainly the majority of those eating at the ISKCON feasts are worshipers who took part in temple services, but the Hare Krishna movement uses its feasts as an outreach effort, and in many cases spiritual seekers, hungry college students, and simply the curious attend as well. The food served is spiritual food (prasadam) that has been offered to Krishna, and adherents believe that preparing, distributing, and eating it are spiritual acts. Outside of temples, Krishna devotees offer prasadam in venues ranging from public parks to college campuses to city streets. Adherents look to the distribution of such spiritual food as not just a religious act but also a form of evangelism as well as social welfare and feeding the hungry (Zeller 2012).

ISKCON’s religious calendar is filled with holidays ranging from weekly partial fasts to monthly lunar ceremonies to major yearly festivals. Such festivals commemorate the activities of Krishna, his closest disciples, and the major leaders of ISKCON’s lineage, such as the birth and death of Chaitanya and Prabhupada. ISKCON adherents also celebrate all the major Hindu holidays such as Holi, Navaratri, and Divali, but they do so in ways highlighting Krishna rather than other Hindu deities. The celebration of holidays explicitly centering on other Gods, such as Shivaratri, are contentious issues within individual ISKCON communities. Many Western-born devotees are uninterested in venerating what they consider demigods, and many Indian-born devotees seek to participate in valued parts of their religious-cultural tradition.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

Today ISKCON’s organization is both centralized and diffuse. It is centralized in terms of the authority of the GBC, the sole institution granted the legitimacy and authority over the religious affairs of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. The GBC determines how funds are collected and used, which gurus will travel to what areas of the world, where to focus evangelism efforts, and how to respond to challenges and problems as they occur. The GBC has the authority to make liturgical changes as well, for example limiting the veneration of gurus to Prahbuphada alone. Along with the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, which publishes the liturgical, educational, and intellectual materials of the movement, the GBC is the embodiment of the institutionalized charisma of ISKCON’s leader and founder Prabhupada.

Yet throughout the world the local ISKCON temples and communities have a great deal of latitude in terms of how they run their own affairs. Individuals and small groups of devotees have sponsored the building of new temples, renovations of older ones, and the planting of new communities meeting in individual houses or rented spaces. Local leaders oversee worship, social activities, and educational services at the temples, and they generally do so with attention to the local needs of their communities. While the actual deity service, texts, and doctrines are shared across all ISKCON communities, great diversity exists in terms of the mood and social functions of the temples. Some temples cater primarily to families and congregational members, others appeal to spiritual seekers or young students. Some temples engage in extensive outreach and evangelism, others are vibrant hubs of social and cultural activities, and others function more like worship halls that are utilized only during weekly temple worship.

ISKCON’s gurus serve as the intermediary leaders between the GBC and the temples. Though initially only Prabhupada served as guru, shortly after his death the pool of gurus expanded exponentially and not without conflict, as noted below (“Issues/Challenges”). Gurus serve as the spiritual elite within ISKCON, initiating new members, blessing and performing weddings, and giving instruction. All are sanctioned by the GBC and act in accordance with its wishes. There is disagreement on the actual number of gurus, with Rochford reporting “more than 80” by 2005 (2007:14), Squarcini and Fizzori seeing eighty in 1993 and seventy in 2001 (2004:26, 80, note 99), and William H. Deadwyler reporting fifty in 2004 (Deadwyler 2004:168). Regardless, enough gurus serve ISKCON that religious power is both centralized within this group but decentralized outside of any one individual or small group. Until recently, all the gurus are were sanyasis, male celibate monks who have dedicated their lives exclusively to Krishna and spreading Krishna Consciousness. Quite recently householder men and women have joined the ranks of gurus as well.

At the base of the movement most ISKCON devotees are congregational members, meaning individuals not living in the movement’s temples. Some formally belong to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as they have taken initiation into the worship of Krishna from one of the movement’s gurus. Others are uninitiated members, those who attend worship and engage in some forms of worship and service but have not been initiated. Today, many congregational members are married. Many of these congregational members (and most members in some North American and British temples) are Indian born Hindus who worship in ISKCON temples but were not members of ISKCON before immigrating to the West. This shift towards participation of householders as congregational members is one of the more remarkable shifts in ISKCON over the years. Sociologist E. Burke Rochford, Jr. has indicated that in 1980, fifty-three percent of the devotees he surveyed had never been married and seventy-three percent had no children. By 1991/1992, only fifteen percent had never been married and only thirty percent had no children (1985:62). Fedrico Squarcini and Eugenio Fizzotti estimate a similar 7:3 ration of householders to celibates among American ISKCON communities (2004:29).

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Like many other new religious movements, ISKCON has faced its share of challenges. Many of these trace to problems arising after the death of the charismatic founder, and others are traced to demographic and social shifts within the movement.

The death of Prabhupada proved the most challenging issue for ISKCON in its brief history as a movement. A highly charismatic leader with appeal that was able to reach a diverse audience, the founder left impossibly large shoes to fill, an apt metaphor since images of Prabhupda’s footprints are a common devotional object in ISKCON temples. The conflict over post-charismatic leadership is therefore central to understanding the development of the Hare Krishna movement over the past thirty years.

A complete analysis of the succession of post-charismatic leadership in ISKCON has yet to be written, though several shorter analyses exist (Rochford 2009; Deadwyler 2004). During his life, Prabhupada served as not just founder and organizational leader, but the only guru and initiating master of the movement. Towards the end of his life he appointed intermediary priests serving on his behalf (ritviks) to initiate disciples. Following his death these ritviks declared themselves gurus, the “zonal acharyas,” each leading a geographic region of the world as sole guru. Prabhupada had also empowered the GBC (on which the gurus served, but not in a majority role) the BBT, and other institutions to guide and lead the movement. Many of the gurus proved themselves unable to lead, either corrupt, inept, or both. The gurus and the GBC came into increasing conflict, until eventually the GBC abolished the zonal acharya system and re-exerted itself as the highest authority of the movement. The GBC also expanded the number of gurus so as to limit their individual authority and focus on Krishna Consciousness itself rather than the messenger.

Certainly the darkest episode in the history of ISKCON involves one such failed guru, and centers on the movement’s agrarian commune, the New Vrindavan community outside Moundsville, West Virginia. [Image at right] Originally intended to serve as a utopian ideal community to demonstrate ISKCON’s religious, social, and cultural teachings, New Vrindavan’s leadership had slowly drifted away from the thinking and direction of the rest of the movement, culminating in the expulsion of the community from ISKCON in 1988. Its leader, an early disciple of Prabhupada with the religious name of Bhaktipada, sought to introduce interreligious and explicitly Christian elements into their religious practice, as well as elevate his local leadership as equal to Prabhupada and above the authority of the GBC. Later, several prominent members of the community were accused of participation in various criminal activities and cover-ups, including child abuse, drug running, weapons trafficking, and eventually murder. Bhaktipada was found guilty of federal racketeering charges and sentenced to prison. Excommunicated from ISKCON, he died in 2011. After his removal from power, the community was slowly brought back into the ISKCON fold (Rochford and Bailey 2006).

Despite this challenges and open conflicts remain regarding the issue of leadership. The majority of ISKCON’s members left the movement during the leadership transitions, but some of these have formed alternative Vaishnava communities equally devoted to Krishna Consciousness but not a formal part of ISKCON. This broader Hare Krishna milieu also includes schismatic movements led by gurus who left or were thrown out of ISKCON, as well as those inspired by Prabhupada’s godbrothers (fellow disciples of Prabhupada’s guru Bhaktisiddhanta). Another group has returned to the idea of the ritviks, breaking with Hindu tradition by refusing to accept the continuation of the lineage of living gurus. This sub-movement looks to ritviks as continuing to act as Prabhupada’s emissaries, and hold Prabhupada as a guru accepting new disciples even after his death.

Connected to the notion of changing leadership, the full and inclusive involvement of non-celibate males has been a major challenge to ISKCON. Prabhupada took a extremely conservative view of gender and family, limiting leadership positions to men and counseling women on the whole to look to religious fulfillment through submission to male leaders or as mothers. Women who joined found this approach attractive and even freeing (Palmer 1994), though with time many female devotees challenged their exclusion from leadership, teaching, and oversight positions (Lorenz 2004). Non-celibate householder men similarly found themselves devalued within ISKCON, which generally had valued celibacy and monasticism as the religious ideal (Rochford 2007).

The centrality of celibate men in leadership roles and a generally negative view of women, children, householder men (that is, families) resulted in the creation of the gurukula system, a sort of religious boarding school for the children born into Krishna Consciousness. The celibate leaders intended the system to help prevent over-attachment of children to their parents and allow them to focus on Krishna bhakti, and the gurukulas also freed parents to focus on service to the Society rather than child raising. Yet the gurukulas generally failed their students, who have reported profoundly negative experiences. Several prominent cases of mistreatment, criminal neglect, and even child abuse led to a series of court cases and the eventual shuttering of many of the gurukula s and a reformation of the few that remained (Deadwyler 2004).

Slowly, ISKCON has made room for greater involvement of women and householder men. Rochford traces this development to labor shortages within ISKCON and the need to use the volunteer talents of women (2007:132-33). In 1998, a woman was chosen to serve on the GBC, and several women have became temple presidents (Rochford 2007:136). Simultaneously, ISKCON leaders have reached out to the South Asian community and welcomed its non-initiated congregational householders as members of the movement. Such involvement has provided financial stability and greater legitimacy to the movement, which increasingly identifies itself with Hinduism as a way to disassociate itself from the notion of ISKCON as a new religious movement or cult. This denominationalization of ISKCON represents the future of the movement as diasporic South Asians become the numerical majority of the movement and ISKCON increasingly associates itself with the Indian diaspora and more normative Hinduism. Yet simultaneously, the creation of the Krishna West movement by Hridayananda Das Goswami demonstrates the concern that some ISKCON leaders have had about this denominationalization, and a desire to maintain outreach beyond the South Asian community. Krishna West exists formally within ISKCON yet functions as a separate “movement within a movement,” a somewhat unsustainable position (Karapanagiotis 2021). It remains to be seen what elements of ISKCON’s first generation, so marked by the American counterculture, will remain within this still-transforming religious movement.

IMAGES
Image #1: Photograph of Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada.
Image #2: George Harrison sitting with a group of ISKCON members.
Image #3: Image of Vishnu.
Image #4: Image of Krishna.
Image #5: Photograph of the Vedas.
Image #6: A group of devotees changing Hare Krishna.
Image #7: An ISKCON devotee distributing literature.
Image #8: The Palace of Gold at New Vrindaban, West Virginia

REFERENCES

Bhaktivedanta, Swami A.C. Prabhupada. 1977. The Science of Self-Realization. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Bryant, Edwin, and Maria Ekstrand, eds. 2004. The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. New York: Columbia University Press.

Deadwyler, William H. 2004. “Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts: Reform and Renewal in ISKCON.” Pp. 149-69 in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand. New York: Columbia University Press.

Frazier, Jessica. 2011. The Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies. London: Bloomsbury

Goswami, Satsvarupa Dasa. 1980. A Lifetime in Preparation: India 1896-1965: A Biography of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Judah, J. Stillson. 1974. Hare Krishna and the Counterculture. New York: Wiley.

Karapanagiotis, Nicole. 2021. Branding Bhakti: Krishna Consciousness and the Makeover of a Movement. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Knott, Kim. 1986. My Sweet Lord: The Hare Krishna Movement. Wellingborough, U.K.: Aquarian.

Lorenz, Ekkehard. 2004. “The Guru, Mayavadins, and Women: Tracing the Origins of Selected Polemical Statements in the Works of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.” Pp. 112-28 in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand. New York: Columbia University Press.

Palmer, Susan J. 1994. Moon Sisters, Krishna Mothers, Rajneesh Lovers: Women’s Roles on New Religions. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Rochford, E. Burke, Jr. 2018. “Aligning Hare Krishna: Political Activists, Hippies, and Hindus.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 22 (1): 34–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2018.22.1.34.

Rochford, E. Burke, Jr. 2009. “Succession, Religious Switching, and Schism in the Hare Krishna Movement.” Pp. 265-86 in Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide, edited by James R. Lewis and Sarah M Lewis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rochford, E. Burke, Jr. 2007. Hare Krishna Transformed. New York: New York University Press.

Rochford, E. Burke, Jr. 1985. Hare Krishna in America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Schweig, Graham M. 2004. “Krishna, the Intimate Deity.” Pp. 13-30 in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand. New York: Columbia University Press.

Squarcini, Federico, and Eugenio Fizzotti. 2004. Hare Krishna. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

Zambon, Oliver and Thomas Aechtner. 2022. “Evolving Religion-Science Perspectives of the Bhaktivedanta Institute and ISKCON.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 25 (3): 57–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2022.25.3.57

Zeller, Benjamin E. 2012. “Food Practices, Culture, and Social Dynamics in the Hare Krishna Movement.” Pp. 681-702 in Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, edited by Carole M. Cusack and Alex Norman. Leiden: Brill.

Zeller, Benjamin E. 2010. Prophets and Protons: New Religious Movements and Science in Late-Twentieth Century America. New York: New York University Press.

Publication Date:
11 September 2023

ISLAMIC STATE TIMELINE

1999:  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi first met Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and went on to set up a competing jihadi training camp.

2001:  Zarqawi’s jihadi group, Jama‘at al-Tawhid wa’l-Jihad (JTL), began operations in Jordan.

2003 (March):  The U.S. invasion of Iraq took place; Zarqawi returned to Iraq with JTL to confront the U.S.

2004 (September):  Zarqawi declared loyalty to Osama bin Laden and renamed his group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

2006 (June):  A U.S. air strike killed Zarqawi; Abu Ayyub al-Masri emerged as the new leader of AQI.

2006 (October):  al-Masri renamed AQI as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) and identified Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the leader.

2010 (April):  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi emerged as leader of ISI after al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed in a U.S.-Iraqi military operation.

2013 (April):  ISI announced that it was absorbing Jabhat al-Nusra, a Syrian-based jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaeda; ISI was renamed as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham/Syria (ISIS).

2013 (December): ISIS took control of Ramadi and Fallujah.

2014 (February):  al-Qaeda renounced ties to ISIS.

2014 (June):  Mosul fell to ISIS; al-Baghdadi renamed ISIS as the Islamic State (IS) and declared himself caliph.

2014 (July): The first issue of the IS online magazine, Dabiq, appeared.

2014 (August):  The U.S. began its air campaign against IS targets in Iraq; IS began to carry out several highly publicized beheadings of Western captives, among them James Foley.

2014 (September): An international coalition to defeat IS took shape under U.S. direction.

2014 (November):  An Islamist militant group operating in Egypt’s Sinai, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, declared its allegiance to IS and renamed itself Wilayat Sinai or province of Sinai.

2015 (January):  Islamist militants in Libya, identifying themselves as a province of IS, Wilayat Tarablus, kidnapped twenty-one Egyptian workers who were beheaded the next month for shock value.

2015 (May): IS captured Ramadi, Iraq, and Palmyra, Syria, even as it lost other territory.

2015 (November): IS claimed responsibility for attacks against Shia in Beirut, Lebanon; one week later IS members carry out multiple assaults in and around Paris, killing 130 and wounding hundreds.

2016 (March):  IS members carried out attacks at the Brussels airport and metro station. Boko Haram, the Nigerian militant group, declared its allegiance to IS.

2016 (October): IS-affiliated Sinai Province downed Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, killing over 200.

2017 (October): IS’s battle for Raqqa, Syria ended in defeat.

2017 (November): IS-linked militants attacked a mosque in Bir al-Abed, Egypt, killing hundreds.

2018 (May): An IS-linked family carried out suicide bombings in Surabaya, Indonesia.

2019 (March): The final defeat of IS in the Syrian town of Baghouz took place, marking the end of the caliphate.

2019 (April): IS-linked militants carried out coordinated attacks against hotels and Catholic churches in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

2019 (October): IS leader Abu Bakr Baghdadi killed during a raid by U.S. forces.

2022 (February): Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Quraishi, inheritor of the mantle of leadership after Baghdadi, was killed during a raid by U.S. forces.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

The group currently known as the Islamic State (IS) [Image at right] has changed its name several times throughout its brief history. It has also undergone dramatic transformations in its social structure: starting as a localized jihadist militia, expanding into a cross-border Sunni insurgency, evolving into a Salafi-Jihadi quasi-state-cum-caliphate, and operating currently as a fragmented global jihadist organization. In the narrative that follows, the various identities are acknowledged for the appropriate time periods as are its structural transformations. It is important to note that IS continues to be referred to in multiple, and sometimes confusing, ways in Western sources: the most common alternative usages are Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (=Syria) or ISIS and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL; the distinction here relates to the best rendering of the Arabic transliteration “al-Sham,” the region once known as Greater Syria, with some preferring the English “the Levant.” In the Arab world, al-Dawla al-Islamiyya fi’l-Iraq and al-Sham or Daesh has become popular, in part because the acronym allows for satiric and disrespectful plays on other Arabic words. Some have questioned the wisdom of adopting references like ISIS, ISIL or even Islamic State (IS) since, in the context of an ongoing propaganda war, they may inadvertently lend support to the movement’s claim of holding legitimate Islamic political authority.

At the height of its power, IS represented a new generation of global Islamist formation that combined Salafi-Jihadi ideology, sophisticated public relations, guerilla warfare, and state-building aspirations. It emerged as a dominant force when the chaos of two failing Middle Eastern states, Iraq and Syria, allowed an otherwise isolated jihadist militia to reinvent itself and play upon political, economic, and social disillusionment in the region and beyond. The short-term success of IS has raised important questions about the political cohesion of nation-states in the Middle East, Western foreign policy in the region and the broader Muslim world, the volatility of global Muslim identity, and the ability of jihadist groups to capitalize on the failures, real and perceived, of modernity.

IS has both an ideological genealogy and organizational history, and their interconnection is important for understanding the way the group has played into the modern Muslim imagination about religion-state relations. The ideological roots of IS trace back to Islamism (sometimes referred to as political Islam) and the Islamist claim that Islam, not secular nation-states, holds the answers to development and political identity in the Muslim world. For its original advocates, Hasan al-Banna of Egypt and Mawlana Mawdudi of India (and later Pakistan), Islamism provided an authentic counter narrative to the Western modernity that had, in the first half of the twentieth century, attracted so many Muslims as the most viable means of establishing a place within the emerging international system of nation-states. The seeds of Islamism were planted, not coincidentally, at the very time that Muslim-majority countries were facing the challenge of colonialism and deciding upon their own political futures. And the historic institution of the caliphate proved an essential topic for Muslim political thinking and identity politics

Founded in 632 C.E. upon the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the caliphate was officially abolished in 1924 after the leader of newly formed nation-state of Turkey, the remaining remnant of the Ottoman Empire, cast off its Islamic cultural baggage and created a Euro-centric (i.e., secular) future. In a very real sense, the end of the caliphate signaled the rise of political modernity in the Middle East, and Islamism emerged as an Islam-centered response, an attempt to modernize along a path that maintained a distinctively different identity for Muslims, even when this path mimicked many of the same structural and institutional configurations as Western nation-states. Most Muslim-majority nation-states came to reject Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s explicit embrace of secularization (in the form of French laïcité), but they did adopt political systems with secular underpinnings, including legal structures.

Rather than disappear from the historical scene, Islamist movements, like the Society of Muslim Brothers in Egypt, founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928, became a voice of political opposition, one that was sometimes suppressed quite brutally. The authoritarian nature of many states in the Middle East made it difficult for Islamists to advocate openly for their version of an Islamic state, and the occasional outburst of political violence by Islamists gave authoritarian regimes reason to crack down even harder on these movements. Over time, Islamists divided over the most effective means to bring about their ideal Islamist order within the framework of autocratic nation-states that allowed little opportunity to engage in open political debate: some, following the lead of Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb, in his radical primer Milestones, [Image at right] turned to militancy as the only way to eliminate what for them had become apostate rulers, if not godless societies; most, however, advocated a moderate path of preaching, teaching and charitable outreach.

All of this might seem far removed from IS, but the militant trend among Islamists within Muslim-majority nations took a dramatic turn in the aftermath of the Afghan-Soviet war (1979-1989), giving rise to the global jihadism of al-Qaeda, which was the precursor to IS. Activist Muslims, some Islamists, some not, flocked to the battlefields of Afghanistan, intent on waging jihad against the Soviet invaders; and they were supported in their efforts, secretly at the time, by the intelligence services of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. After the Soviets were defeated, some of the so-called “Arab Afghans” stayed on in Afghanistan and a few gravitated to Osama bin Laden’s call to continue the jihad but take it global. al-Qaeda was comprised, in part, of militant Islamists from places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tunisia, and Jordan, who had pushed the Islamist agenda in their home countries and failed to make headway against governments unfriendly to their political goals (Wright 2006:114-64). For example, al-Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been jailed in Egypt for his involvement with the Jihad Organization, which had assassinated President Anwar Sadat in 1981. But what distinguished the global jihadism of al-Qaeda from the militant Islamism of, say, Hamas in Palestine or Jihad in Egypt, was its identification of the West, in particular the United States, as the most important threat and focus of jihad. Whereas militant Islamists directed their attention toward the “near enemy” of secularized Arab-Muslim elites (viewed as apostates), global jihadist saw the “far enemy” of the West as the ultimate challenge to the victory of Islam. Moreover, whereas moderate Islamists had, over time, made peace with the modern state system, even agreeing to form political parties and participate in elections, global jihadist came to see such engagement as an embrace of Western ways and a betrayal of the Islamic cause.

A primary factor, then, in the emergence of global jihadism was the failure of Islamism to be accommodated within the “instrumental politics” of nation-states in the Middle East (Devji 2005:2). Islamism went global because it found the path to power blocked by authoritarian states unfriendly to its political goals, and global jihadism could only take root beyond the effective sovereignty of any state. Thus, it was the chaos of war-ravaged Afghanistan that allowed bin Laden to organize al-Qaeda, establish jihadist training camps, and go on to wage war against what he called “the global Crusaders.” And it was the chaos of Iraq that served as the backdrop to the organizational history of IS.

The person who capitalized on and exacerbated this chaos was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, [Image at right] a Jordanian jihadist with a history of brutal terrorist acts. After serving a prison sentence in Jordan, he traveled to Afghanistan in 1999, where he met Osama bin Laden and, with bin Laden’s assistance, started a competing jihadi training camp nearby. While sharing many of al-Qaeda’s views and goals, Zarqawi remained independent. He founded Jama‘at al-Tawhid wa’l-Jihad (JTL), which established a record of terrorism in both the Middle East and Europe, all of which drew the attention of U.S. intelligence agencies. He shifted his base of operations to Iraq after the U.S. invaded in 2003 to confront Western forces. By 2004, Zarqawi had pledged allegiance to bin Laden, and JTL was rebranded as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Between 2004 and his targeted killing by a U.S. airstrike in 2006, Zarqawi waged a sectarian war, presumably with the approval of bin Laden, against Iraqi Shi‘a in an effort to divide the country and drive the Sunni population into the camp of AQI. So bloody were Zarqawi’s methods that he drew a rebuke from Zawahiri about the need to avoid alienating Muslims from the jihadist cause (Cockburn 2015:52; Weiss and Hassan 2015:20-39).

After Zarqawi’s death, command of AQI fell to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who renamed the organization Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) a few months later and identified Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the leader. From 2007 onward, ISI encountered increasing pressure from the Sunni Awakening, a joint effort of Sunni tribes and U.S. military to eliminate the jihadist threat. By 2010, ISI had witnessed a severe decline in its capacity to engage the enemy, whether Shi‘a or coalition forces, and the killing of both Masri and al-Baghdadi seemed to confirm this situation. The new leader of ISI, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, inherited a much-weakened organization, but the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 provided an opening to reinvigorate terrorist actions. ISI received added impetus from the civil war that broke out in neighboring Syria by the end of 2011 because of the Arab spring uprisings. Syria’s long-oppressed Sunni majority rose up against President Bashar al-Assad, who drew his support from the Alawite minority (a Shi‘i subsect). Much of the initial Sunni opposition in Syria reflected secular leanings, but it was quickly outpaced and out-financed by Islamist and jihadist groups. Thus, what began as a broad-based protest against the regime to demand political and economic rights for Sunnis turned into a religious sectarian battle that drew in regional powers, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—all intent on promoting their own political agendas.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the newly elected president, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, implemented a series of policies that strengthened the Shi‘i majority, often at the expense of the Sunni minority that had ruled the country under Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime. Iraq’s Sunnis had already experienced a dramatic decline in political and economic power because of the de-Baathification policies introduced under the U.S. occupation, including the disbanding of the Iraqi army. Their sense of disenfranchisement grew when the Shi‘i-dominated government in Baghdad strengthened its ties to Iran, drew on the support of Shi‘i militias, and targeted Sunnis/Baathists accused of attempting to regain power. The protest of Sunnis in Syria became a rallying cry for Sunnis in Iraq, and ISI was there to capitalize on the situation. A seeming perfect storm of beleaguered Sunnis and self-serving Shi‘i rulers in Syria and Iraq provided ISI with the opportunity to fan the flames of sectarianism and insinuate itself into the volatile mix of identity politics.

The instrument of ISI’s intervention in Syria was an AQI-affiliated group, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), which established itself among the array of opposition fighters by early 2013. Claiming that it had sent JN to gain a foothold for ISI in Syria, Baghdadi declared the two groups had merged to form the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham/Syria (ISIS). The leader of JN, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, rejected the merger, and a falling out between ISIS and al-Qaeda ensued, with Zawahiri attempting to restrict Baghdadi’s field of operations to Iraq. Infighting among jihadist groups was common in Syria, but the rift between ISIS and al-Qaeda threatened to split the core group that had come to define global jihadism. By early 2014, al-Qaeda and ISIS had renounced one another, and in June of that year ISIS made a bold military push in Iraq that included the taking of Mosul, the country’s second largest city, and a highly dramatized “smashing the borders” campaign that removed the barrier between Syria and Iraq.

With the border under its control, ISIS claimed that the era of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret treaty dividing the Middle East into spheres of colonial influence, negotiated in 1916 between France and Britain, had come to an end, and so too had the Western ideology that separated Muslim people in the region: nationalism. ISIS used this occasion to declare the establishment of the Islamic State (IS) and a return of the caliphate, with Baghdadi named the “commander of the faithful,” [Image at right] the person to whom all Muslims around the world owe allegiance and obedience. In a symbolic demonstration of his new title, Baghdadi, dressed in traditional garb, delivered the Friday sermon, on July 4, in the Great Mosque of Mosul and led the congregation in prayer. His sermon made clear that the world had, with the (re-)creation of the caliphate, split into two opposing forces: “the camp of Islam and faith, and the camp of kufr (disbelief) and hypocrisy.” Muslims around the world were now religiously obligated to emigrate to the state where Islam and faith ruled (Dabiq 1:10). It is important to note that the caliphate had been part of bin Laden’s theoretical range of vision. In an interview one month after 9/11, he stated:

So I say that, in general, our concern is that our umma unites either under the Words of the Book of God or His Prophet, and that this nation should establish the righteous caliphate of our umma…that the righteous caliph will return with the permission of God (Bin Laden 2005:121).

But bin Laden [Image at right] and his successor, Zawahiri, maintained their militant focus on the “far enemy,” never articulating the precise parameters that would allow the caliphate to reemerge. IS would later argue that it was fulfilling bin Laden’s deepest desire, thereby bringing bin Laden into its jihadi ancestry and isolating Zawahiri as an ineffectual pretender. Indeed, the rapid pace of IS’s initial territorial gains in Iraq and Syria seemed to confirm, at least to true believers,that the time for the caliphate had arrived and was divinely sanctioned. Volunteers began arriving from around the world, much to the chagrin of Western nations that witnessed some of their fellow Muslim citizens abandoning their seemingly comfortable lives to join a jihadist organization committed to fostering global conflict (Taub 2015). And IS was quick to publicize images of recent arrivals from the West burning their passports and shouting jihadist slogans. In fact, provocation proved an essential feature of IS public relations, and propaganda of the deed became an all-too-common style: Middle Eastern Christian communities attacked, the men killed, and women sold into slavery; Western journalist held hostage and later executed; a Jordanian pilot burned alive in a cage; Egyptian Coptic Christians taken hostage and beheaded en masse. IS made images of these deeds public through social media and reprinted them in issues of Dabiq, the glossy, English-language online magazine it began to publish in July 2014.

In September 2014, a Global Coalition Against Daesh, also referred to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, formed to target IS strongholds, counter its propaganda, and prevent flows of fighters and funding; it has grown over the years to include some eighty-six countries around the world. In response, IS ratcheted up its taunting and bloodletting, and articulated a strategy of “remaining and expanding,” which entailed strengthening its hold over lands already under its control and bringing new territory into its orbit of influence. In the fifth issue of Dabiq, entitled “Remaining and Expanding,” IS announced the inclusion of several wilayat (provinces) into the caliphate: the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, Sinai Peninsula, Libya, and Algeria (Dabiq 5:3). Its stated goal was to “reach into the homelands and living rooms of ordinary people living thousands of miles away in western cities and suburbs,” and it envisioned itself as a “global player” (Dabiq 5:36). And just as coalition forces started to attack IS territory, IS called upon its supporters to carry out attacks in the West: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European (especially the spiteful and filthy French) or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be” (Dabiq 5:37). After organized and lone-wolf attacks began to occur on a regular basis, the UN Security Council declared IS “a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security” (The United Nations Security Council 2015).

At its peak, in late-2014, IS controlled over 100,000 square miles and a population of some 12,000,000 (Jones, et.al. 2015). By early 2015, however, coalition forces had begun to push IS fighters out of areas of Syria and Iraq, and the battle lines against IS expanded (and became more politically complicated) after Syrian President al-Assad, under pressure to reclaim lost lands and defend his beleaguered regime, negotiated for Russian military aid and ground support. It would take more than four years of intensive fighting to break IS’s control over the region. Urban warfare in the Iraqi cities of Ramadi, Falluja, Mosul, and Ramadi proved especially devastating for civilians and essential infrastructure. In March 2019, the final battle occurred in the Syrian town of Baghouz, bringing an end to the slowly diminishing territorial caliphate. Throughout these last years of fighting, terrorist attacks, either directly led by IS operatives or proxies, continued, often with dramatic effect. France, a member of the anti-IS coalition, was targeted several times: some 130 were killed and hundreds wounded in and around Paris in 2015, and Nice experienced a truck bomb attack on Bastille Day 2016, killing  and wounding hundreds. Suicide bombers targeted Brussels airport and metro station in March 2016, resulting in thirty-six dead and some 300 wounded. A Russian airliner, with 224 passengers aboard, was downed over the Sinai Peninsula in October 2015, in retaliation for Russian-Syrian air campaigns against IS forces. Attacks in other locations around the world (Spain, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Afghanistan) speak to the ideological and tactical reach of IS, even as its “caliphate” was under siege.

Despite the March 2019 defeat at Baghouz, a small but effective group of IS insurgents has continued to operate in northern Syria, kept alive by the chaotic aftermath of war, limitations of the Assad regime’s power, foreign intervention, and the jihadists’ determination to maintain some semblance of the territorial caliphate. The group has carried out small scale attacks and thwarted efforts to dislodge it. IS leadership, however, has been under constant attack. Abu Bakr a-Baghdadi, the avowed caliph, was killed in a raid carried out by U.S. forces in October 2019; his replacement, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, met a similar fate in February 2022; and Turkish forces claim to have killed the latest IS leader, Abu Hussein al-Quraishi, in May 2023. While IS power has diminished dramatically in its heartland, its various provinces have remained a tangible threat. According to the Global Terrorism Index, IS and its affiliates “remained the world’s deadliest terrorist group in 2022 for the eighth consecutive year, with attacks in 21 countries” (Institute for Economics & Peace 2023).

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

IS portrayed itself as the true remnant of Islam in the modern world and defined its beliefs largely in relation to what it rejects among the dominant trends in Muslim societies, which it regards as unbelief (kufr). Like Islamism, IS framed its very existence as a return to or restoration of what had been lost by modern Muslims due to the impact of secularism and un-Islamic leadership. And like militant Islamism, it espoused a set of millennial ideas and practices that transforms Muslim societies, if not the entire world, into a battleground between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. This battleground took on territorial specificity once ISIS established the Islamic State (=caliphate) and invoked the traditional division between the abode of Islam and abode of unbelief (dar al-Islam, dar al-kufr).

After establishing its provisional capital in Raqqa, IS began a program to teach religious functionaries (imams and preachers) its “methodology of truth.” Those selected to participate had previously served in these roles in the area, but they needed IS sanction to continue. The book selected for the one-month seminar of instruction was written by Sheikh Ali al-Khudair, an influential Saudi Wahhabi scholar known for his past support of jihadist activities. Its appeal rested on its firm grounding in the teaching of the founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, and its willingness to confront the evils of the age and pronounce the takfir (declaring someone a kafir, unbeliever; excommunication) against sinful individuals, even if they are unaware of their sinfulness (Islamic State Report 1:3). Many of the religious experts affiliated with IS, those in charge of educating the Muslim masses and rendering religious judgments, are Saudis with a strong commitment to the kingdom’s Wahhabi doctrine, though not the royal family. In its publications, IS casts itself as Salafi-Wahhabi, with a strong aversion to “deviant” innovations that emerged within Islamic tradition after the lifetime of the pious ancestors (al-salaf al-salih), deviants identified as Shi’is, Asharis, Mu’tazilis, Sufis, Murji’is, and Kharijis.

IS embraces Salafism’s generic creedal focus on the oneness of God (tawhid) and the rejection of any beliefs or practices that detract from divine unity. It also, like Salafism, places great attention on the details of textual argumentation, legitimizing every decision with reference to the Qur’an and Sunna and presenting its interpretation as the only authentic one. Indeed, creedal and moral certainty informs everything IS does, and serves as a strong selling point for those modern Muslims searching for clarity in a world of half-truths and lies. IS committed itself to founding a “caliphate on Prophetic methodology,” a phrase used often in its literature to signal a return to authentic Islam and to lay “claim to both religious and political authority over all Muslims” (Olidort 2016:viii). Thus, the Muslim identity IS offers has no equal: it is above reproach in its adherence to correct belief and practice, and it induces a sense of truth and righteousness that permits easy judgment of other Muslims (Haykel 2009:33-38). Nowhere was this concern about Islamic legal and moral rectitude more apparent than in the way IS justified its use of violence, especially when the victims were fellow Muslims. In keeping with its movement orientation, IS shaped its creedal stance in the dynamic environment of the very violent conflict to which it had contributed. It was, in effect, carrying out brutal acts of violence, of terror, at the same time it was arguing for the virtue and necessity of these acts. The primary audience for this argument was the Muslim world, a world that seemed largely in agreement that IS had taken a dangerous turn and was threatening both Muslim lives and Islam’s image. In fact, IS had provoked an Islam vs. Islam debate on a global scale, and the terms of the debate included historical references to ongoing Muslim discourse about the nature of modern politics and the limits of legitimate rebellion.

Muslim critics of IS, including Islamists, often resorted to accusing the group of being or behaving like Kharijis, the notorious seventh-century sectarian movement known for its hyper-piety and violence against fellow Muslims. According to traditional Islamic sources, the Kharjis accused fellow Muslims of being apostates to justify their murder (takfir), sowed social and political dissension, and undermined the legitimacy of two of the four Rightly Guided caliphs in Sunni Islam. Indeed, mainstream Sunni orthodoxy emerged, at least in part, by defining itself over and against the actions and image of Kharijis (sometimes rendered Khawarij or Kharijites). In the mid-twentieth century, the name of this sect had been invoked by Muslim religious and political authorities to anathematize Islamists, whether moderate or militant, and to influence public opinion about Islamism, extremism, and the sanctity of the state; in Egypt, members of Society of Muslim Brothers, such as Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, were commonly linked to Kharijis in the media (Kenney 2006). For its part, IS viewed the accusation of being Khariji as propaganda intended to weaken the Muslim community by allowing the un-Islamic behavior of corrupt Muslims, especially political leaders, to continue. As a result, it did not hesitate, out of fear of being labeled Khariji, from passing judgment against what it deemed apostate Muslims  and shedding their blood. Thus, even as IS rejected the label “Kharijis,” it engaged in the very behavior that had made the sect infamous. When first accused of being Khariji, IS responded in two ways: first, IS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-‘Adnani participated in a formal exchange of curses (what is referred to in Islamic tradition as mubahala) that asked God’s punishment if IS were in fact Khariji. This was part of a larger debate with other jihadist groups, during which one leader claimed that IS was “more extreme than the original” Kharijis (Dabiq 2:20). Second, in what appeared a manufactured situation, IS uncovered a Khariji cell operating within its territory and threatening to attack the caliphate. The cell was subsequently “disbanded and punished” according to Islamic law, making it seem that IS acknowledged illegitimate violence of the Kharjis (Dabiq 6:31).

In its defense of violence, even the glorification of it, IS adopted an interpretive stance, common among all reformist Muslims, of framing modern challenges in terms of those that faced the Prophet Muhammad. But the focus for IS was the broader historical condition in which Muhammad had to introduce the message of Islam (referred to as jahiliyya or ignorance) and how he dealt with the challenges. Islamic tradition casts jahiliyya as the time before the advent of Islam, before Muhammad brought truth and knowledge; it is the sinful period during which Arabs had reverted to depravity and polytheism. Put simply, jahiliyya represents an inversion of Islam. Following a line of thought elaborated by Qutb in his radical primer Milestones, and then adopted by Islamist militants everywhere, IS portrayed the modern world, particularly Muslim societies, as drowning in a sea of jahiliyya. As a result, sinfulness and corruption reign; Muslims have lost their way and are in need of guidance; and many Muslims have forgotten or renounced Islam falling into the recurring condition of jahiliyya. The only response, so the argument goes, is for true believers to act as Muhammad and his early followers had, to oppose and eliminate the pagan forces of jahiliyya by waging jihad on behalf of the faith. In one of the many textbooks produced by IS, the famous Battle of Badr (624CE), between Muhammad’s army of believers and the polytheists of Mecca, is recounted for dramatic effect. Readers are encouraged to glean important life lessons from the experience of the Islamic army in the battle: that God is on the side of believers, that “terrorizing (irhab) unbelievers and frightening them” is required, that “killing families is a requirement when necessary and is a way of restoring [society’s] well-being” (Olidort 2016:21).

IS wanted Muhammad’s confrontation with jahiliyya to come alive for Muslims, to both inspire them and compel them to make a life-altering decision. And that decision was IS’s own caliphate, a carved-out exception in the modern world where Muslims could live under Islamic law, where they could finally lead true Muslim lives. Of course, IS did more than invite; it claimed that it was every Muslim’s duty (fard ayn) to emigrate (hijra) from jahiliyya to the Islamic State, to submit to the authority of the caliph, and to wage jihad.

In IS propaganda, the formation of the Islamic State and declaration of the caliphate had given rise to a new doctrinal obligation; these events had brought about “the extinction of the grayzone,” just as the coming of Muhammad created a clear-cut choice between jahiliyya and Islam (Dabiq 7:54-66). Everyone now had to make a decision, and live or die with the consequences. Failure to act was not an option, for it meant siding with the unbelievers and falling into apostasy. If migration was not an option for those true believers living among infidels in the West, the land of the Crusaders, they could avoid a “death of jahiliyya” by declaring their oath of loyalty (bay’a) to the caliph and fighting to the death wherever they were (Dabiq 9:54). Here again, IS was directing

Muslims to follow in the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad, who also emigrated to ensure Islam’s survival and success. Much to the horror of many Muslims, IS also drew on the example of the Muhammad to justify gruesome acts of violence, such as the immolation of a Jordanian pilot shot down during a bombing run over IS territory or the beheading of captives (Dabiq 7:5-8).  [Image at right] “Prophetic methodology,” it seems, allowed IS to terrorize and kill at will.

For IS, individuals who performed the hijra and took up jihad were participating in a larger God-ordained plan for humanity that was unfolding in the region: the coming great battle (al-malahim al-kubra) that precedes and sparks the final hour. Syria was linked with a number of end time prophecies in Islamic tradition, and IS drew on them to demonstrate the historic importance of events materializing within the caliphate and to inspire Muslims to participate. The title of the IS magazine, Dabiq, [Image at right] for example, refers to a site in Syria, attested to in hadith, where the final battle between Muslims and Romans (understood to mean Christian Crusaders) will take place, and which will result in a great Muslim victory, followed by the signs of the hour: the appearance of the Antichrist (Dajjal), the descent of Jesus, and Gog and Magog. A provocative reference to this prophecy, supposedly made by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, appeared on the content page of each issue of the magazine: “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify, by Allah’s permission, until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.”

IS played on prophesies of this kind to heighten attention to its unique time in history and the significance of the fighting, in the Islamic State proper and beyond. This fighting eventually enmeshed both regional and international powers and seemed to confirm IS claims of a coming battle of historic, if not cosmic, significance. Every minor battle, every inspirational speech, every newly declared province, every terrorist attack, every military response by the West, and every new Muslim arrival to the Islamic State became another sign of prophecies being fulfilled and the coming ultimate conflagration that will end with Islam’s global victory. Even a seeming breach of Islamic ethics provided an occasion to promote the unique historical period in which people were supposedly now living. When IS encountered Yazidis, an ancient Mesopotamian people with a syncretic set of religious beliefs and rituals, in the Nineveh province of Iraq, it treated them as polytheists (mushrikun), not monotheists, and, following Islamic legal rulings, saw fit to enslave their women. In its discussion of this decision, IS drew attention to the fact that “slavery has been mentioned as one of the signs of the Hour as well as one of the causes behind” the coming great battle (Dabiq 4:15). This incident was revisited in a later issue of Dabiq by a female writer, Umm Sumayyah al-Muhajirah, who defended the decision to enslave women and used it to taunt IS enemies:

I write this while the letters drip of pride. Yes, O religions of kufr altogether, we have indeed raided and captured the kafirah women, and drove them like sheep by the edge of the sword…Or did you and your supporters think we were joking on the day we announced the Khilafah upon the prophetic methodology? I swear by my Lord, it is certainly Khilafah with everything it contains of honor and pride for the Muslim and humiliation and degradation for the kafir (Dabiq 9:46).

The writer ends the piece in a provocative and insulting aside, claiming that, if Michelle Obama were to be enslaved, she would not earn much of a profit.

Muslims who joined IS became, intentionally or not, part of its mythic narrative of the coming apocalypse, but they also entered a social world, in which people had been invited to lead real lives, with families, homes, and jobs. As William McCants points out, IS blurred the lines between eschatological expectations of the coming of the long-awaited messiah (mahdi) and the practical responsibilities of running the caliphate: “Messiah gave way to management. It was a clever way to prolong the apocalyptic expectations of the Islamic State’s followers while focusing them on the immediate task of state building” (McCants 2015:147). Of course, death would eventually come for many who were drawn in by talk of the apocalypse, but life in the caliphate also had an air of normality, proof that it was in fact a “state.”

Through its media outreach, IS appealed to Muslims around the world to emigrate to the newly established Islamic State, and to contribute to the only place where Muslims can enjoy the fruits of a true Islamic society, where Islamic law is enforced and Muslim brotherhood comes naturally. People with professional backgrounds were specifically targeted because they would bring much-needed skills for the growing community. The benefits of life within the boundaries of the Islamic State were touted as material and spiritual: newly arrived families were promised homes (sometimes confiscated ones), men were promised wives (sometimes enslaved ones), and social services were established to provide for the needy. IS was reported to have paid for the weddings and honeymoons of some of its fighters. Indeed, IS went to great lengths to show that it had established a workable society, with an Islamic police force, collection and distribution of charity (zakat), care for the orphans, and a consumer protection office with a number to call for complaints (Islamic State Report 1:4-6). And there were plans, never actualized, to mint coins for use within the umma (community), in an effort to create a “financial system” distinct from that of the Western-dominated world (Dabiq 5:18-19). In an article entitled “A Window into the Islamic State,” images of people engaging in repairing bridges and the electrical grid, street cleaning, caring for the elderly, providing child cancer treatment attested to IS’s efforts to meet the basic needs of Muslims (Dabiq 4:27-29). Another article entitled “Healthcare in the Khilafah” claimed that IS was “expanding and enhancing the current medical care” and has opened training colleges for medical professionals in Raqqa and Mosul (Dabiq 9:25).

Such everyday images, however, stand in stark contrast to other promotional references: to the final battle and the end time, and to photos of grisly beheadings, mass executions, stoning of adulterers, and martyrdom operations. But it is precisely this blending of the mundane and the murderous, of worldly and millennial expectations, that infused IS propaganda during the heady days of its caliphal rebirth. The life of jihadis in the Islamic State, it seems, had to be lived on the knife’s edge of history and the apocalypse.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

IS advocated the traditional rituals linked to Sunni orthopraxis and imposed them within the area under its control. It also supplemented these with ritual-like activities related to state formation and the return of the caliphate. It is no exaggeration to say that IS, like many jihadi groups turned jihad into the sixth pillar of Islam. The group praised the importance of jihad (for purifying the soul, defeating the enemy, restoring the caliphate, and taking revenge for a history of Western aggression) at every opportunity and hurled insults at those Muslims who portrayed Islam as a religion of peace and, thereby, surrendered to Western pressure. Like prayer and fasting during Ramadan, jihad was obligatory for Muslims, according to IS, and so was performing the hijra, the emigration from the abode of unbelief to the abode of Islam, the Islamic State. Another “ritual” that took on an obligatory nature with the establishment of the caliphate was the oath of allegiance (bay’a), given to the caliph, often in a public setting, to demonstrate a person or group’s submission to the caliph’s authority. Staged photo ops of oaths being offered to al-Baghdadi, IS’s caliph, have appeared in various issues of Dabiq, and militant movements in other countries have sent their oaths, either via delegates or Twitter, declaring their allegiance and renaming themselves provinces of the Islamic State.

Perhaps the most dramatic, and troubling, ritualized activities carried out by IS were the public punishments and executions. IS prohibited smoking cigarettes and punished its own fighters with whippings and beatings for indulging. Those caught watching pornography or taking drugs were also beaten. Thieves had their hands chopped off or worse. Those found guilty of adultery were put to death by stoning, and homosexuals were tossed off buildings. Such displays drew large crowds, most of the onlookers coerced to attend, and video clips captured people cheering and calling for the guilty to be punished. Enforcing Islamic law, and being seen doing so, was in large part what justified the existence of IS, and the results were sometimes grudgingly respected. In a region where law and order were subject to arbitrary enforcement and corrupt officials, IS gained a reputation for honesty and efficiency. Such was the lived reality of citizens in the states that IS had supplanted (Hamid :2016 220-21).

While not a ritual per se, martyrdom became an essential feature of IS’s military tactics and mythology. Suicide bombers were regularly deployed at the outset of an attack, to take out defensive outposts and shock the enemy into a state of fear. According to Islamic tradition, a Muslim could achieve no higher honor than death in battle against the enemies of Islam, and IS propaganda was replete with images of those jihadis who had taken that final transformative step. Muslims who joined IS were reinventing themselves, separating themselves from family, friends, and work to make a new beginning. Performing the hijra was the first step, followed by engaging in jihad. Becoming a martyr completed the transformative path and linked the honored dead with those still waging jihad. Indeed, the martyred dead spoke, as it were, from the grave through inspirational messages dictated or recorded before death, advertisements to join the cult of blood and sacrifice. As the message of one martyr made clear, death was not simply the ultimate expression of jihadi conviction; it also served as a definitive proof text of the faithful life one has led:

My words will die if I do not save them with my blood. My emotions will be put out if I do not inflame them with my death. My writings will testify against me if I do not produce evidence of my innocence of hypocrisy. Nothing except for blood will fully assure the certainty of any evidence (Dabiq 3: 28).

Memorializing such sacrifices (in videos, poetry, and song) provided a powerful boost to the fighting spirit and identity of those who remained: “For jihadis, acts of martyrdom are the building blocks of communal history” (Creswell and Haykel 2015:106).

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

IS was born in a competitive jihadi environment, with numerous movements and leaders vying to attract recruits and financial support. All had grown out of the same militant Islamist soil and drew on the teachings and inspiration of an array of radicalized thinkers, from Qutb to bin Laden. Under the leadership of Zarqawi, ISI, the precursor to IS, distinguished itself by its ruthless acts of violence, directed largely against Iraq’s Shi‘i population. When IS declared the return of the caliphate and named al-Baghdadi the caliph of the age, it set itself apart from other militant groups, and created a crisis of legitimacy and expediency within jihadist ranks. Whether Baghdadi was the best figure to assume this historic role was an ethical and legal question for many jihadists at the time. IS attempted to address any doubts about al-Baghdadi’s leadership in the first issue of Dabiq, which ran under the title “The Return of Khilafah.” One story in the issue quoted at length from al-Baghdadi’s inaugural speech and referred to him as Amirul-Mu’minin or Commander of the Faithful; another provided a historical argument about the fusion of religious and political affairs under Muslim leaders like Abraham and Muhammad, and the need to restore this model of leadership (Dabiq 1:6-9, 20-29). But IS effectively upstaged the competition, and silenced the debate about al-Baghdadi’s legitimacy, by winning the image war on social media and by backing up its claims of authority with military prowess and territorial expansion. Bold claims and bold actions, then, transformed this militia-cum-state into a preeminent leadership role. What al-Qaeda aspired to become post-9/11, IS turned into a reality, and it did so by redefining the rules of militant Islam: movement structure gave way to state-building; distinctions between “near enemy” and “far enemy” became moot as IS targeted enemies (Muslim and non-Muslim) everywhere; and the magnetic force of a reawakened and victorious caliphate lured Muslim recruits from around the world.

Once the organizational structure of IS became a quasi-territorial state, it exposed itself to the same kind of targeted attacks on infrastructure and supply lines that IS deployed against Iraq and Syria. But the claim of being a caliphate, not a nation-state, gave IS rhetorical latitude on challenges to its territorial sovereignty. The reinvented caliphate was an exception in the world of nation-states, and one might argue that was IS’s intent: to create an exceptional place, literally and figuratively. Unlike modern nation-states that define themselves by their borders, the boundaries of the caliphate can shift without undermining its theoretical integrity. Historically, the shape of caliphal lands on maps was always changing, as was the capital city of the caliphate. Reinvented in an era of nation-states, the caliphate appeared anachronistic, and was, but that is precisely the point IS wished (and still wishes) to make. In a sense, IS was attempting to intervene, on a grand scale, in what Muslim reformers since the nineteenth century had identified as a decline in Islamic power and Muslim self-confidence, a decline made apparent by the rise of the West and its imperialist expansion into Muslim lands. The modern period, according to the reformist narrative, demanded a rethink about what Islam once was and could be again if Muslims rededicated themselves and found the lost spirit of Islam. By changing the modern map of the Middle East, and the structure and language of governance, IS hoped to reawaken the true spirit of Salafi reform and to reset the clock on modernity. It was a fantasy of sorts, but one that resonated (and still does) with many who continue to wrestle with the narrative of disappointment that has informed modern Muslim consciousness.

Of course, a reawakened caliphate required a good deal of reinvention, meaning that aside from its name and other historical references, it was no more authentic than that other invented tradition which it competed: the nation-state. In fact, IS organized itself and ruled over the territory it controlled much like a nation-state. It was a command-and-control operation infused with religious references and figures. Baghdadi served as the “commander and chief” or caliph, with advice provided by a cabinet (shura council composed of religious specialists) and an array of deliberative councils spanning a range of state functions:  military, finance, legal, intelligence, media, security…etc. As caliph, Baghdadi had ultimate authority, though he can in theory be removed from office by the shura council. Two deputies had authority to preside over affairs in Iraq and Syria, and governors were named to oversee everyday rule in the various provinces. The precise means by which orders were passed along the chain of command and finances routed or hidden have remained open questions, though various raids over the years have provided insight into the inner-workings and thoughts of a leadership that was clearly resilient and determined to continue the fight. IS learned how to withstand the losses inflicted by coalition forces, maintaining its command-and-control infrastructure, economic activity, and flow of recruits, which is to say that, for a time, it truly functioned like a state…until it did not.

After the caliphate was defeated in 2019, noncontiguous provinces, under the ongoing banner of the Islamic State, became the organizational structure, though its coherence as an operational movement has proven difficult to assess. What seems clear is that planning for a post-caliphate continuation of jihad began before IS reached its height of power in Syria and Iraq, suggesting that the leadership, despite its rhetorical bravado, recognized that its consolidated power would be short-lived. Working with existing militant groups in places like Afghanistan and the Egyptian Sinai, IS offered training and financing in exchange for allegiance and renaming. These provinces expanded the IS brand and the jihad, along with providing another battlefield to which fighters could be dispersed as the territorial caliphate shrank. As early as 2015, IS negotiated with local militants in Afghanistan, a jihad-friendly environment with a weak centralized-state, mountainous terrain, and ongoing Taliban resistance. This resulted in the creation of the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) or IS-K, a group that has grown larger and bolder over time, sometimes working with other militants like the Taliban, always working against al-Qaeda. However, after U.S. forces were withdrawn from Afghanistan in August 2021, IS criticized the Taliban, asserting that the American departure was simply “a peaceful transfer of power from one idolatrous ruler to another…the substitution of a shaven idolatrous ruler for a bearded one” (Bunzel 2021). al-Qaeda, by contrast, congratulated the Taliban for evicting the Americans and continuing to wage jihad. A competition between militant groups, rooted in stated tactics and goals, is playing out in Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and IS has tried to position itself as the most committed and uncompromising. Given al-Qaeda’s deference to and dependence on the Taliban, and the Taliban’s limited agenda of Islamizing Afghanistan, IS seems destined to waging jihad against fellow militant Islamists.

In other provinces, IS affiliates are adjusting to complex political, ethnic, and religious landscapes, often exploiting existing divisions and grievances to secure allies (even if only temporary), fighters, and resources. Africa has witnessed a dramatic expansion of IS interest and activity, starting in 2015 when Boko Haram, a violent Islamist sectarian group based in northeastern Nigeria, pledged allegiance to IS and was rebranded the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP). Founded in 2002, Boko Haram, meaning “Westernization is Sacrilege,” advocated a reform of Nigerian society, in particular its corruption and poverty, by instituting Islamic law and shunning all forms of Western influence in education, culture, and morality. Its ongoing attacks on civilians, especially schools, and expansion into new territory led the government to ban the group and mount an offensive; by 2015, Boko Haram, under heavy government assault, sought to gain assistance and reinvigorate its forces and image by joining IS. In the same year, Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahrawi, a Salafi-jihadi leader with a long career of militant movement activism in the Sahel, declared his oath of allegiance to IS, forming what would be called the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS). A sub-Saharan region cutting across many countries (from Senegal to Chad) and roiling with ethnic and religious factions, the Sahel has become home to criminal gangs, rebel movements, and jihadists, both domestic and foreign. Though not an official province, ISGS espouses the aims of IS and both competes and cooperates with other groups, including al-Qaeda, to carry out attacks on Western outposts. IS fighters in war-torn, post-Gaddafi Libya are now operating in a similar contested and chaotic environment.

The ostensible goal of the provinces and affiliate groups is to create an Islamic state, but the more immediate objective, in the absence of sufficient military force, is to foment instability and demonstrate that the jihad continues. As was the pattern in Iraq and Syria, the strategy is to enter already destabilized regions, establish makeshift command-and-control infrastructure, and plan attacks that communicate the jihadist threat: to local and regional governments, to other jihadist groups, and to the West. And with the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS still in place, IS knows that the world is getting the message. Every year, the coalition issues a communique, outlining IS activities in its provinces and reaffirming the members continued determination to eliminate or, at least, contain the extremists (Joint Communiqué by Ministers of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS 2023).

Speculation abounds regarding the organizational structure of the provinces, communication between them, and how they are funded. Each region seems to have a certain operational independence and responsibility to find resources (human, material, and financial), a situation no doubt driven by efforts of the coalition to disrupt flows of communication, money, and fighters. In fact, IS has struggled to keep its propaganda message alive. Once an effective means of recruitment and messaging, social media has become highly restrictive, making it more difficult to post violent video clips and invite Muslims to make the “journey to jihad” (Taub 2015; Mazzetti and Gordon 2015). The leadership of IS has also been significantly weakened, both symbolically and in human terms. Each time a caliph, the foundational claim of IS authority over the Muslim world, has been named, he has been targeted and killed by coalition forces. Provincial leaders and other known militant Muslim actors have also been taken off the battlefield. Of course, replacements eventually emerge from the ranks (though at the time of this writing no new caliph has been identified), but the constant fear of being targeted eats into morale and undermines the management of jihad.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

With the demise of the caliphate, IS has returned to its jihadi terrorist organization roots, but the conditions have changed, and it’s important to consider the implications for the current global jihadist scene and the forces arrayed against it. Initially, IS succeeded by playing on and exacerbating political and social tensions that preexisted and facilitated its rise in Iraq and Syria. Like its global-jihadist ancestor al-Qaeda, IS operated opportunistically, taking advantage of weak states and putting pressure on ethnic and sectarian divisions. In a very real sense, its survival depends on continuing this strategy, but it must now be implemented in different environments throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia with each province or affiliated group having semi-independent command and control. Put differently, IS currently functions like a transnational terrorist or crime organization with self-contained, self-sustaining cells. The cells adapt to their respective environments, carving out niches in the socio-political and criminal landscape, making temporary alliances as needed, feeding off the land, and plotting opportunities to strike. In this scenario, “global terrorism” can be difficult to distinguish from the existing social and political realities that challenge governments and law enforcement agencies around the world. And countering the threat of IS, along with that of other terror groups, becomes more complex, nuanced, and costly, to such an extent that many governments and citizens have come to accept that, while the official “War on Terror” has ended, the unofficial one continues unabated. Of course, the threat level has lessened and the threat itself has evolved, but IS remains a source of social, political, economic, and cultural instability, especially for those living in the immediate vicinity of its provinces or affiliated groups.

The Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, then, will not be able to declare victory soon or, perhaps, ever. It can only hope to preempt large-scale attacks, mitigate the impact of lesser ones, and continue to engage in long-term counterterrorism efforts, both hard and soft. Western nations (the ones with sufficient resources) have developed the techno-surveillance capacity to disrupt or prevent future attacks, though only after experiencing the kind of terrorist violence that still plagues other countries. As one insightful analyst points out, “[w]ell-resourced states will be able to buy their way to order, whereas weaker ones will not” (Hegghammer 2021 52). And the cost of IS goes far beyond counterterrorism measures. The loss of life and damage to infrastructure in Iraq and Syria has yet to be quantified. Iraq has started the difficult path of recovery, trying to rebuild essential services, effective governance, and national unity; healing the country’s deep rift between Sunnis and Shi’as has no easy short-term fix. Syria is all but a failed state, with swaths of territory under the control of Turkish, Kurdish, and rebel forces, along with a remnant of IS fighters; the Assad government is attempting to shed its pariah status, at least in the Arab world, but it owes its political survival to Iran and Russia and has become financially dependent on international aid agencies.

Refugees from Iraq and Syria, in the hundreds of thousands, are scattered across the region, and the number of internally displaced people is equally high; many will never return to their original homes. Admittedly, IS is not responsible for all the chaos that has enveloped the two nations. The civil war in Syria started years before IS established its caliphate, and Iraq had gone through decades of autocratic misrule, foreign occupation, and civil unrest. As noted, IS stoked this instability to gain a Salifi-jihadist foothold. More directly linked to years of IS war-making/state-making is the unresolved problem of how to deal with captured IS fighters and their families. Some 60,000-70,000 detainees, many of them children, are being held at two camps in northern Syria, al-Hol and Roj, by the Kurdish-led Syrian Defense Force. Among the fighters are both Syrian and foreign nationals, and the same is true of family members. Efforts to repatriate foreign nationals has been slow, with many countries balking at resettling radicalized fighters or their families. Those researching the problem report that repatriated children adjust well when given a chance, especially those under twelve, but “many governments refuse to take these young nationals back, citing national security concerns or fearing public backlash” (Becker and Tayler 2023). No judicial process has been established to sort out who among the detainees might be prosecuted or otherwise rehabilitated, and with repatriations stalled, the situation has become a human rights crisis. Conditions in the camps are stark and create a potential breeding ground for the very radicalism coalition forces are opposing and, ideally, preempting. Fears that fighters might escape and continue the jihad are rife. “It’s a problem from hell,” according to one security expert, “and until the international community comes together to clean this up, it’s a bomb waiting to go off” (Lawrence 2023).

Finally, a note on the Islamist politics that gave rise to IS and informs its propaganda and stated raison d’etre. Central to Islamism is the twined notion that 1) Islam (broadly understood) provides all the essential teachings and truths that Muslims and Muslim societies need to survive and succeed in the modern world, and 2) the Western path of secular development is incompatible with Islam and Muslim identity. Viewed one way, this is a simple assertion of Muslim authenticity and of the need to carve out a modern way of life compatible with Islamic values. But the assertion arose at a time when most leaders of Muslim-majority countries, many of which were living under or had experienced colonial rule, began to adopt development programs and sometimes rhetoric that mimicked the so-called “Western model.” As a result, Islamists emerged as national opposition voices, ones that challenged mainstream thinking about both religion and politics in the modern world. Moderate Islamists went on to teach the benefits of Islam as a path of salvation and modern prosperity and to critique the failures of Western systems of governance (capitalism, communism, socialism) adopted in their respective nations; militant Islamists, grown tired of the seeming failures of these systems and the anti-Islamist oppression of rulers, shifted from teaching to the sword or AK-47. IS and other jihadi organizations have pushed the once nation-state-centric voice of Islamist opposition, backed up by well-armed militias, onto the world stage, transforming Islamism into an ideological catchall for Muslim mobilization and resistance. Thus, what had been a struggle to normalize Islamist politics within the framework of Muslim-majority nation-states has become a global effort to extinguish jihadist firestorms fueled by failures of nation-building, economic injustice, and inequality between the developed and developing worlds. Such large-scale and complex problems lie beyond the reach of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, even though many of its members, in both the Muslim world and the West, have contributed to them.

IMAGES

Image #1: IS battle flag.
Image #2: Sayyid Qutb’s radical primer, Milestones.
Image #3: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Image #4: Abu Bakr a-Baghdadi.
Image #5: Osama bin Laden.
Image #6: A Jordanian pilot burned alive in a cage.
Image #7: An issue of Dabiq,

REFERENCES

Becker, Jo and Letta Tayler. 2023. “Revictimizing the Victims: Children Unlawfully Detained in Norther Syria.” Human Rights Watch, January 27. Accessed from  https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/27/revictimizing-victims-children-unlawfully-detained-northeast-syria on 25 June 2023.

Bin Laden, Osama. 2005. Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, edited by Bruce Lawrence, translated by James Howarth. London: Verso.

Bunzel, Cole. 2021. “Al Qaeda Versus ISIS: The Jihadi Power Struggle in Afghanistan.” Foreign Affairs, September 14. Accessed from  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2021-09-14/al-qaeda-versus-isis?utm_medium=promo_ on 25 June 2023.

Cockburn, Patrick. 2015. The Rise of the Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution. London and New York: Verso.

Creswell, Robyn and Bernard Haykel. 2015. “Battle Lines.” The New Yorker, June 8: 102-08.Dabiq. Issues 1-9.

Devji, Faisal. 2005. Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Doxee, Catrina, Jared Thompson and Grace Hwang. 2021. Examining Extremism: Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP). Blog Post, Center for Strategic & International Studies. Accessed from https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-islamic-state-khorasan-province-iskp on 25 June 2023.

Hamid, Shadi. 2016. Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle over Islam is Reshaping the World. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Haykel, Bernard. 2009. “On the Nature of Salafi Thought and Action.” Pp. 33-57 in Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, edited by Roel Meijer. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hegghammer, Thomas. 2021. “Resistance if Futile: The War on Terror Supercharged State Power.” Foreign Affairs 100:44-53.

Institute for Economics & Peace. 2023. Global Terrorism Index 2023: Measuring the Impact of Terrorism. Sydney, Australia. Accessed from https://www.visionofhumanity.org/resources on 25 June 2023.

Islamic State Report. Issues 1-4.

Jones, Seth G., James Dobbins, Daniel Byman, Christopher S. Chivvis, Ben Connable, Jeffrey Martini, Eric Robison, and Nathan Chandler. 2017. Rolling Back the Islamic State. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Accessed from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1912.html on 25 June 2023.

Kenney, Jeffrey T. 2006. Muslim Rebels: Kharijites and the Politics of Extremism in Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lawrence, J.P. 2023. “ISIS fighters and families under guard in Syria pose ‘problem from hell’ for US forces.” Stars and Stripes, April 10. Accessed from https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle_east/2023-04-10/isis-prison-syria-military-centcom-9758748.html on 25 June 2023.

Mazzetti, Mark and Michael R. Gordon. 2015. “ISIS is Winning the Social Media War, U.S. Concludes.” The New York Times, June 13, A1.

McCants, William. 2015. The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State. New York. St. Martin’s Press.

Olidort, Jacob. 2016. Inside the Caliphate’s Classroom: Textbooks, Guidance Literature, and Indoctrination Methods of the Islamic State. Washington, D.C.: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Accessed from https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/inside-caliphates-classroom-textbooks-guidance-literature-and-indoctrination on 25 June 2023.

Roy, Olivier. 2004. Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schmidtt, Eric. 2015. “A Raid on ISIS Yields a Trove of Intelligence.” The New York Times, June 9, A1.

Taub, Ben. 2015. “Journey to Jihad.” The New Yorker, June 1:38-49.

The United Nations Security Council. 2015. “Security Council ‘Unequivocally’ Condemns ISIL Terrorist Attacks, Unanimously Adopting Text That Determines Extremist Poses ‘Unprecedented’ Threat.” Meetings Coverage, Security Council. United Nations. Accessed from https://press.un.org/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm on 25 June 2023.

U.S. Department of State. 2023. Joint Communiqué by Ministers of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Media Note, June 8. Accessed from https://www.state.gov/joint-communique-by-ministers-of-the-global-coalition-to-defeat-isis-3/ on 25 June 2023.

Weiss, Michael and Hassan Hassan. 2015. ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. New York: Reagan Arts.

Wright, Lawrence. 2006. “The Master Plan.” The New Yorker, September 11:49-59.

Publication Date:
29 June 2023

JAINISM TIMELINE

Distant Past. According to Jain tradition, the first through the twenty-second Tirthankaras (twenty-four enlightened beings who emerge in the course of a cosmic cycle to teach the path to liberation) had enormous life spans and date back in time as far as several billion years. Each Tirthankara has a shorter life span than the previous one. The current series ends with Mahavira, the twenty-fourth, who is held to have lived for seventy-two years.

2600-1900 BCE. Advanced phase of the Harappan, or Indus Valley, Civilization. Some Jain scholars perceive connections between the culture of the Indus Valley Civilization, as reflected in its archaeological remains, and Jainism, suggesting that some items

depict Rishabha, or Adinatha, the first Tirthankara, and speculating that Rishabha was an important cultural figure for–and perhaps even a founder of–this civilization (Parikh 2002).

1500-1000 BCE. Conventional scholarly dating of the composition of the Vedas, which are the earliest extant sacred writings of the Hindu traditions. References to Rishabha and Arish ṭ anemi in the Rig Veda are taken by some Jain scholars to be references to the first and twenty-second Tirthankaras, respectively.

877-777 BCE. Traditional dating of the twenty-third Tirthankara, Parshvanatha, held by both Jain and non-Jain scholars to be an actual, historical figure.

599-527 BCE. Traditional dating of Mahavira, twenty-fourth (and last) Tirthankara of our current era. Mahavira’s given name was Vardhamana Jñatriputra. Mahavira is an epithet that means “Great Hero,” and refers to his heroic ascetic practices.

499-427 BCE. Dating of Mahavira according to current scholarship, which places the time of the Buddha, a contemporary of Mahavira, a century later than do traditional sources.

327 BCE. Alexander of Macedon invades northwestern India, creating a power vacuum exploited by Chandragupta Maurya of Magadha.

320-293 BCE. Reign of Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Maurya Dynasty, and held by one Jain tradition to have been a Jain layman. According to one account, he left the kingship late in life to become a Jain monk, dying of voluntary self-starvation at the Jain pilgrimage site of SHravana Be ḷ go ḷ a (in the modern Indian state of Karnataka). Some scholars suggest that this account refers to the last Maurya ruler, Samprati Chandragupta, who lived around 200 BCE.

c. 200 BCE. Jains begin to migrate beyond the northeastern region of India to the south and west. This may be a factor in the eventual division of the Jains into their Shvetambara branch (which is located predominantly in western India, in the modern states of Gujarat and Rajasthan) and their Digambara branch (which is located predominantly in Karnataka and Maharashtra, though there have long been northern Digambaras as well). This is also the period of the composition of the oldest extant Jain scriptural texts.

c. 100-200 CE. Life of Umasvati, composer of the Tattvartha Sutra, a summary of Jain teaching held to be authoritative by both Shvetambara and Digambara Jains. This is also the period of the schism between these two Jain communities.

c. 200-300 CE. Life of Kundakunda, important Digambara philosopher and mystic.

c. 700-800 CE. Life of Haribhadra, Shvetambara philosopher known for his pluralistic approach to non-Jain traditions based on the Jain teaching of anekanta-vada, or “doctrine of non-one-sidedness.”

1089-1172 CE. Life of Hemachandra, prominent Shvetambara philosopher, historian, and literary figure.

1000-1200 CE. Period of major Jain temple construction and climactic phase of a Jain “golden age” of artistic, architectural, literary, and philosophical achievement that began with Umasvati.

c. 1400-1500 CE. Life of Lonka Shah, Jain reformer who rejected the worship of images (murtipuja) and inspired two later aniconic Shvetambara groups, the Sthanakavasis and the Terapanthis.

1867-1901 CE. Life of Rajacandra Maheta, a spiritual adviser to Mahatma Gandhi. The movement of his followers is known as the Kavi Panth.

1889-1980 CE. Life of Kanji Svami, founder of the Kanji Svami Panth, a modern Jain movement also based on the mystical teachings of Kundakunda.

1970 CE. A Shvetambara monk, Chitrabhanu, becomes the first monk in modern history to break the traditional ban on overseas travel in order to spread Jain values globally. He is soon followed in 1975 by Sushil Kumar who, in 1983, establishes Siddhachalam, a Jain center in Blairstown, New Jersey.

1914-1997 CE. Life of Acharya Tulsi, a leader of the Terapanthi Shvetambara Jains who pioneered a socially engaged Jainism. He established Jain Vishva Bharati, a center for the study of Jainism, in the town of Ladnun, Rajasthan, and the anuvrat movement–an anti-corruption movement intended to inject Jain values into Indian and global politics. In 1980, he established the saman and samani orders of ascetics who were not bound by the traditional restrictions on travel for Jain monks and nuns, to enable Jain ascetics to do the kind of global work pioneered by Chitrabhanu and Sushil Kumar, albeit without running into conflict with their monastic vows.

c. 1900-present. The Jain community becomes increasingly global, with Jain migration to various parts of the world, particularly to Britain and North America, and a growing number of temples and other Jain institutions being established outside of India.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY  

Jainism is held by Jains to be a collection of eternal and unchanging truths, and therefore, strictly speaking, to have no history, in the sense of a definite beginning in time. Jains, in general, think of the history of their tradition in terms of the “Universal History, which provides a description on a massive scale of the destinies, enacted over a vast period of time, of the twenty-four Jain teachers, the fordmakers [called Tirthankaras], and their contemporaries (Dundas 2002:12).” Even the eon-spanning Universal History is a mere snapshot of a tiny portion of the eternal sweep of time as conceived in Jainism.

One can trace the history of the current Jain community to Mahavira and his predecessor, Parshvanatha–the twenty-fourth and twenty-third Tirthankaras. Tirthankaras are twenty-four beings who emerge in the course of a cosmic cycle, or kalpa, to re-discover and re-establish the path to liberation from the cycle of karma and rebirth.

Both Parshvanatha and Mahavira were leaders of an ascetic movement that emerged in the northern part of India in the first millennium BCE. This shramana or “striver” movement was made up of many sub-groups (including the Buddhists). The shared ideology of this movement was one of asceticism, according to which freedom from suffering can only be achieved by liberation from the cycle of rebirth. This cycle is fueled by karma, which causes beings to experience the results of their actions, good and bad. Morally correct action leads to pleasant experiences and immoral action leads to unpleasant experiences. Because one lifetime does not allow enough time to experience all these results, rebirth is necessary. This also explains why persons are born in such varied circumstances. Good fortune is due to good past actions and misfortune to bad past actions.

Even good action, though, produces impermanent results, which are therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. A state of true and lasting happiness only comes when one becomes free from the effects of karma. Such freedom is the goal of the shramana traditions. Despite the differences that separate their approaches to this problem, all share the idea that one must remove oneself from society and from conventional social duties and norms if one is to achieve perfect freedom, engaging in a life of ascetic practice and meditation.

The ideology of the shramanas was distinct from that of their chief rivals, the Brahmins, who upheld the ancient Vedic tradition. In early Vedic writings one finds no explicit mention of karma and rebirth, or the ideal of liberation from rebirth. These ideals, which the Brahmanical and shramana traditions share, emerge in Vedic literature only relatively late, in a series of philosophical dialogues called the Upanishads, composed in the same period in which the shramana movement emerged. According to Brahmanical belief, one measure of a person’s spiritual evolution, and so proximity to the goal of liberation, is that person’s social station, or varna–now widely known as “caste”–the highest caste being that of the Brahmins themselves. The Brahmins are traditionally the priests of the Vedic religion, and some of their rituals in ancient times involved the sacrifice of animals in a sacred fire. In the Brahmanical worldview, the Brahmins are essential to maintaining the cosmic order, for their regular performance of Vedic ritual is key to upholding this order, and only they are qualified to perform it. SHramana teachers, on the other hand, held that caste was a man-made institution created for the maintenance of society, and not an indicator of spiritual evolution. Anyone, of any caste, who puts forth sufficient effort can achieve transcendence of karma and rebirth and reach liberation. Animal sacrifices, moreover, violate the principle of nonviolence (ahimsa), observance of which is vital to achieving liberation. SHramana groups like the Jains and Buddhists therefore rejected the notion that birth caste had any relevance at all to the spiritual life–though they did not reject the institution of caste as such, as a form of social order. They also rejected the Vedic ritual of animal sacrifice, while retaining much Vedic terminology and continuing to honor Vedic deities, such as Indra. It is simplistic to claim that Jains and Buddhists “rejected caste,” as if they were social revolutionaries; for both communities continued to organize themselves into castes, and Jains choose marriage partners, for example, on the basis of caste to the present day. It is equally simplistic to equate ancient Brahmanical traditions with which Mahavira and the Buddha contended with the Hinduism of later centuries, and of today. For while Hindus do maintain a strong sense of continuity with the Vedic tradition, many of the practices to which the shramanas objected have also been rejected by most Hindus (such as animal sacrifice), and Hindu movements have emerged through the centuries that have rejected the identification of spiritual evolution with caste.

Born into a royal family in the northeastern region of India known as Greater Magadha (Bronkhorst 2007), at the age of 30, Mahavira chose to renounce his status in search of the path to liberation from cycle of rebirth and freedom from suffering for all beings. After twelve years of gruelling and intense ascetic practice, he attained a state of perfect freedom and knowledge known as kevala jñana.

Over the course of the next thirty years, Mahavira developed a following of monks, nuns, and laypersons which became the nucleus of the Jain community. The Shvetambara and Digambara Jain traditions differ on the details of this period. The Shvetambara scriptures depict Mahavira as a teacher of extraordinary wisdom, but as a human being engaged in such conventional activities as speaking and walking from place to place. According to Digambara tradition, however, a Tirthankara, upon achieving kevala jñana, engages in no activity whatsoever and teaches by means of a spontaneously emitted sacred sound called divyadhvani that is interpreted by his disciples as verbalizable concepts.

At the age of 72, Mahavira died at Pavapuri, in the ancient Indian kingdom of Magadha, located in the modern Indian state of Bihar.

In Mahavira’s lifetime, according to Jain tradition, he established a fourfold community of male and female ascetics and householders that persists to the present. In the century following Mahavira, this early Jain community was but one of many shramana groups that existed alongside one another and the Brahmanical community in northern India. To be sure, these communities were neither hermetically sealed nor mutually exclusive. A part of the cultural texture of South Asia has long been the phenomenon of “open boundaries” (Cort 1998), in which members of a religious community easily frequent and participate in the institutions, rituals, and celebrations of others. A sense of religious exclusivity has tended to be the preserve of the “professional religious”–that is, ascetics and priests–and is not even consistently observed among these persons.

In 327 BCE, with Alexander of Macedon’s attacks in northwestern India and the power vacuum that these created among the leaders of rival Indian states, a series of events was set in motion that would have profound consequences for the shramana traditions. Taking advantage of this power vacuum, Chandragupta Maurya, the king of Magadha, conquered much of northern India, establishing the Maurya Dynasty.

The Maurya rulers tended to patronize the shramana traditions (though, in keeping with the “open boundaries” principle, were not exclusive in this regard). This patronage resulted in many material resources being bestowed upon groups such as the Jains and Buddhists (the latter group being the special object of support by Chandragupta’s grandson, Ashoka). Monastic institutions emerged and Jain and Buddhist scriptural texts, heretofore passed on orally, began to take written form.

According to one tradition, Chandragupta himself was a Jain layman who spent the final years of his life as a monk at the Jain pilgrimage site of SHravana Be ḷ go ḷ a, in the southern Indian region of Karnataka. Recent scholarship suggests that this story refers to Samprati Chandragupta, the grandson of Ashoka and the last Maurya emperor (Wiley 2004:51). This story speaks of a famine in the northeastern heart of the Maurya Empire which led many Jains to migrate to the south and west, where most Jains have resided since ancient times. There are relatively few Jains today in the original northeastern homeland of this tradition, but many Jains in the southern state of Karnataka and in western states such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra. There were also considerable ancient communities of Jains in the southern state of Tamil Nadu and the eastern state of Orissa.

This famine and dual migration, separating the Jain community into southern and western branches, is sometimes cited as a major factor in the subsequent schism between the two main sects of Jainism: the Digambaras (predominant mainly in the south, though there are northwestern Digambara groups as well) and the Shvetambaras (predominant exclusively in the northwestern and western parts of India).

The next thousand years, after the Shvetambara-Digambara schism, were something of a “golden age” for the Jain community, which flourished in both the northwest and in the south. Unlike Buddhism, and in contrast with the transmission of Hindu traditions into Southeast Asia, Jainism was not carried outside of India until the modern period, due to the restrictions upon movement imposed upon all Jain ascetics–who are required to travel everywhere by foot and are not permitted to travel in artificial conveyances due to the harm that these bring to tiny life forms. Within India, though, the Jains became a highly prosperous minority community. Having attracted, from an early period, much of their following from the merchant communities, Jains have tended to be identified primarily as a business community throughout Indian history. Despite their small numbers, the wealth of the Jains, as well as the respect commanded by the strictness of Jain ascetic practices, led them to have an influence upon Indian culture far broader than a focus on numbers might suggest. The first millennium of the Common Era was a period of prodigious Jain achievement in literature, philosophy, architecture, and visual art, with many famous Jain temples being built during this period. Temple building especially became, and remains, a popular way for wealthy Jain laypersons to earn religious merit, and the wealth that is lavished upon these structures is the most evident marker, for outsiders, of the wealth of the community as a whole (which otherwise tends to discourage ostentatious displays of wealth).

In the area of philosophy, prominent contributors from this period include Umasvati, the second-century composer of the Tattvartha Sutra, a compendium of Jain teaching that is held to be authoritative by both Digambara and Shvetambara Jains. Basic Jain doctrines have deviated remarkably little from Umasvati’s presentation across the various Jain sub-groups, and across the centuries. Most differences among Jains, including the Digambara and Shvetambara division, as we have seen, are focused on the details of practice, rather than on issues of basic belief.

Other important Jain intellectuals of this period include Kundakunda, a Digambara figure whose teaching includes a prominent thread of mysticism. Kundakunda articulates a Jain version of the “two truths” doctrine found in the Buddhist writings of Nagarjuna and in the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Hinduism advanced by Shankara. The “two truths” are a conventional truth, that can be expressed in words and consists of the basic worldview of the tradition in question, and ultimate truth that is beyond words, to which the worldview of the tradition points only in an imperfect fashion.

Kundakunda is followed by Haribhadra (c. 700-800 CE), who is part of a series of Jain intellectuals who develop the “doctrines of relativity.” According to these doctrines, the nature of reality is irreducibly complex and allows for a variety of interpretations. In the hands of Haribhadra, this doctrine becomes a justification for a remarkably pluralistic and accepting approach to the teachings of Hindu and Buddhist schools of thought (Chapple 2003).

With the multiple invasions of India by foreign powers that begin near the end of the first millennium of the common era and continue until the Mughal period (which begins in the fifteenth century), the fortunes of the Jain community wane somewhat. The community continues to be prosperous in pockets of India where their presence is accepted and their distinctive traditions tolerated; but the level of intellectual and architectural production is diminished from its earlier period of flourishing, and there are some Jain temples that fall prey to the destructive whims of the invaders.

The last couple of centuries have been characterized by major developments, such as the emergence of a global Jain community (due to greatly increased Indian migration and settlement abroad), the rise of charismatic Jain teachers teaching paths that emphasize lay spirituality and a highly individualized and personal approach to Jainism, and the rise of neo-orthodoxy–a highly rationalized way of seeing Jainism as consistent with science.

A global Jain community gives rise to the need for a more global monastic community to teach and provide spiritual inspiration to householders, as well as a sense of Jainism as a universal tradition, with doctrines and insights highly relevant to modern problems such as the threat of nuclear war and environmental degradation, as well as the ongoing issue of conflict among the world’s religions. In 1970, a Shvetambara monk called Gurudev Chitrabhanu felt the need to spread Jain values globally and became the first monk in modern history to break the traditional ban on overseas travel, attending a conference on the world’s religions at Harvard University. He was followed by Sushil Kumar, a monk who came to the US and, in 1983, established Siddhachalam, a Jain center in New Jersey.

Meanwhile, Acharya Tulsi, the monastic leader of the Terapanthi Shvetambara Jains in the latter half of the twentieth century pioneered a socially engaged Jainism. He established Jain Vishva Bharati, a center for the study of Jainism, in the town of Ladnun, Rajasthan, and the anuvrat movement–an anti-corruption movement intended to inject Jain values into Indian and global politics. In 1980, he established the saman and samani orders of Jain ascetics. These ascetics, whose lifestyles could be described as an intermediate step between the life of the Jain householder and the thoroughgoing asceticism of the “full” monk or nun, are not bound by the traditional restrictions on travel for Jain monks and nuns. This enables them to do the kind of global work pioneered by Chitrabhanu and Sushil Kumar without running into conflict with their monastic vows.

Growing Jain communities in countries such as the US and Britain, in conjunction with increased Indian immigration, have also led to the emergence of a new kind of institution not generally found in India, but consistent with the ancient Indian pluralistic principle of and “open boundaries”: the “Hindu-Jain” temples. These institutions serve both the Jain and Hindu communities and allow for both predominantly Indian groups to pool their resources in the common cause of preserving their religious practice and culture in a land where both groups are a tiny minority of the total population (Long 2009:4-13).

Charismatic teachers of the modern period who have pioneered a very mystical, personal approach to Jainism include Kanji Svami (1889-1980), founder of the Kanji Svami Panth, which is based on the teachings of Kundakunda, and Rajacandra Maheta (1867-1901). Maheta, popularly and respectfully known as SHrimad Rajacandra, was a closer advisor to the young Mohandas K. (“Mahatma”) Gandhi. Often called “Gandhi’s Guru,” Maheta’s teaching and example had a profound impact on Gandhi’s thought–particularly in regard to his emphasis on nonviolence and the necessity of personal transformation as integral to any effort to change the world (Long 2009:78-79).

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

According to traditional Jain belief, the universe has always existed and will always exist. There is no creator. But it would be a mistake to conclude that Jains are atheists, in the sense of not believing in a higher power or non-material reality. There is a concept of divinity in Jainism. This divine reality is not a creator, however, but is the essence of the soul of every being. God, for Jains, is any soul that has become liberated and has realized its intrinsic nature as infinite bliss, knowledge, energy, and consciousness.

So is God one or many in Jainism? Again, God is any soul that has achieved liberation. “Each of these souls exists in identical perfection, and so is indistinguishable from any other such soul. Due to this identity of perfection, God for the Jains can be understood as singular. Because there are many liberated souls, God can also be understood as plural (Cort 2001:23).”

The primary aim of life, according to Jainism, is the realization of the intrinsic divinity of one’s own soul. Souls are intrinsically divine–intrinsically joyful and perfect. However, this divinity has been obscured through countless time due to the effects of karma. In the Jain understanding, karma is more than simply the principle of moral causation found in other Indic traditions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. It is also the substance that forms the mechanism by which this principle operates. Karma, in other words, is a “thing” in Jainism: a type of non-conscious, non-living “stuff” (ajiva) that adheres to the conscious, living soul (jiva). Karma is of different kinds. Some of it produces unhappy experiences and some of it produces happy experiences. The kind of karma one attracts to one’s soul depends upon the action one performs and the passion that accompanies it.

This is an important point. It is not only a good or bad action that draws correspondingly good or bad karma to the soul. The passion (raga) or volitional quality with which one performs an action is a central factor as well. Violent, angry passions that manifest in the form of harmful thoughts, words, or actions are the worst, attracting the most obscuring and painful varieties of karma to the soul. Peaceful actions, aimed at alleviating suffering or doing good for others, bring good karma to the soul. The ultimate aim, though, is to be free from all karma. One must strive, therefore, to act with calm equanimity, and without anxiety for the outcome of one’s action, in order to achieve a state of perfect freedom.

Jain moral and ritual practice is centered around cultivating such a state of equanimity, as well as around purging the karma that currently adheres to the soul. The moral principles of Jainism are expressed in five vows. Persons who take up the ascetic life, and who are therefore aiming at achieving liberation in the relatively near future, follow a version of these vows that is as rigorous and intensive as humanly possible. Laypersons, who may see liberation as a very difficult and distant goal, and focus instead on achieving greater well-being in the near term, in the form of good karma (or a reduced karmic load overall) will adhere to a less demanding (though still quite rigorous) version of these principles (though whether they actually undertake them formally, as vows, varies a great deal). The form of the vows taken by the monks and nuns is called a mahavrata, or great vow. The layperson follows the anuvratas, or lesser vow. The five vows are:

1. ahimsa: nonviolence in thought, word, and deed
2. satya: telling the truth
3. asteya: non-stealing
4. brahmacharya: restraint in the area of sexuality
5. aparigraha: non-ownership, or non-attachment

The great vow of ahimsa entails the very strict practice of nonviolence that characterizes the life of the Jain monk or nun, some of whom even wear a muhpatti , or mouth-shield, to avoid accidentally ingesting tiny life forms. The lesser vow, on the other hand, entails no deliberate killing of any living thing, and the observance of a vegetarian diet. The great vow of brahmacharya entails celibacy for ascetics, but marital fidelity for laypersons. And the vow of aparigraha entails no ownership of anything whatsoever for ascetics, who do not technically “own” the items that they use, such as the ceremonial whisk, bowl, and, in the case of Shvetambara ascetics, clothing. For laypersons, the lesser vow of aparigraha involves living simply and avoiding greed or extravagance in regard to personal luxuries.

One might ask, if intention is part of what attracts karma to the soul, why Jain ascetics are so concerned with avoiding accidental harm to living things. The answer is that, once one is aware of the presence of tiny living things throughout cosmic space, such as in the air one breathes or the water one drinks, one becomes responsible for not harming them. Clearly intentional taking of life is far worse than accidental harm. However, to do harm through moving about in an unmindful fashion rises to the level of deliberate harm if one knows about this consequence of one’s behavior. A large portion of Jain teaching consists of an account of the myriad forms of life inhabiting the universe, as well as the karmic actions that can lead to rebirth in these forms. The mindfulness of the living environment which Jainism inculcates has led to a heightened interest in this tradition as a potential resource for ecological thinking (Chapple 2002).

Finally, Jainism has a sophisticated system of logic addressed to the issue of the diversity of worldviews in the form of its doctrines of relativity (Long 2009:117-172). The basic concept of reality at the heart of the Jain doctrines of relativity is expressed in anekanta-vada. Anekanta-vada literally means the “non-one-sided doctrine,” or the doctrine of the complexity of reality.

According to anekanta-vada, reality is complex, or multi-faceted. That is, all things have infinite aspects. No phenomenon can be reduced to a single concept, such as permanence or impermanence. Philosophies like the Hindu Advaita Vedanta tradition that emphasize the reality of one permanent entity, claiming that all change and diversity are illusory, or philosophies like Buddhism, that affirm impermanence and deny permanence, are “one-sided” (ekanta). They emphasize one aspect of experience at the expense of all others. Jainism, however, emphasizes the validity of all aspects of experience, and claims that an adequate philosophical account of reality must include all of these aspects, reducing none to the realm of illusion.

This insistence on the both permanent and impermanent aspects of experience seems to originate in the Jain concept of the soul, or jiva, which has a permanent, unchanging nature (consisting of infinite bliss, energy, and consciousness), and a constantly changing aspect (the modifications of the karmic accretions).

This doctrine is also rooted in the Jain belief in the omniscience of Mahavira. The doctrine that all things have infinite aspects is rooted, in part, in the scriptural accounts of Mahavira’s discourses, in which he addresses various questions by referring to the many aspects of reality, and the correspondingly many points of view from which such questions could be answered. The person, for example, is said by Mahavira to be, in one sense, eternal (if one emphasizes the unchanging nature of the soul), and in another sense, non-eternal (if one emphasizes the physical aspect of the person), etc.

One implication, just mentioned, of anekantavada, the doctrine that things have many aspects, is nayavada, the doctrine of perspectives. According to this doctrine, there are as many ways of examining an entity as there are aspects of it. Again, there is an eternal aspect, which leads to its being defined in one way, a changing aspect that leads to its being defined in another, etc.) This implies the next doctrine, syadvada.

Syadvada means, literally, “maybe doctrine,” though a better translation is “doctrine of conditional predication.” This doctrine, implied by the other two, amounts, essentially, to the claim that all claims can be both true and false, depending upon the perspective from which they are asserted. The truth of any claim is conditioned by and dependent upon the perspective from which it is made.

This doctrine is also called the saptabhanginaya, or sevenfold perspective, because of its claim that all claims have seven possible truth-values. Depending on the perspective from which it is affirmed, a claim can be: (1) true, (2) false, (3) both true and false, (4) inexpressible (neither true nor false, or both true and false at the same time and in the same sense, in violation of the principle of non-contradiction), (5) true and inexpressible, (6) false and inexpressible, or (7) true, false, and inexpressible. With the understanding of truth operative in this doctrine, one could conceivably reconcile the conflicting claims of the world’s religions and philosophies.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Jain ritual is tied closely to the broader Jain worldview and is understood in Jain textual sources as a form of meditation, aimed at purging karma from the soul and cultivating a state of equanimity that will prevent further karma from entering. Seen from this point of view, Jain ritual is integral to the moksha-marga, or path to liberation. At the same time, however, many Jains also conceive of their ritual practice as conducive to well-being in the world: to penultimate goals, such as health, wealth, and long life for themselves and their families, and a good rebirth (Cort 2001:186-202).

Superficially, many Jain rituals appear to have the same structure as analogous Hindu rituals. Like Hindus, many Jains practice the worship of images, or murtipuja: namely, the image-worshiping (Murtipujaka) Shvetambaras (who make up the majority not only of Shvetambaras, but of Jains worldwide), and the Digambaras. Only Shvetambara Terapanthi Jains and Sthanakavasi Jains refrain from image-worship. Image worship includes such actions as abhishekha, or anointing, in which pure substances such as milk, yogurt, sandal paste, and water are poured over the top of an image; arati, in which lit candles or lamps are waved in front of the image, usually to the accompaniment of singing and the ringing of a bell; and the offering of food to the image.

The rationale for Jain worship, however, is quite different from that for Hindu worship. The differences between the two can be seen to arise from the distinct theologies of the two traditions–the ways in which the two traditions conceive of divinity and the relations between human beings and the divine.

For Jains, “God” refers to the liberated soul. Any liberated being is divine–such as the Tirthankaras–and all liberated beings are one, inasmuch as all souls have the same basic essence of infinite knowledge, consciousness, energy, and bliss. These souls are not the creators of the world; nor do they play an active role in assisting Jains toward liberation, beyond having, in the past, set forth the teaching and the practice of the path and started a community to perpetuate these. Honoring an image of a liberated being, or Jina, through abhishekha and arati, for example, is therefore, ultimately, to pay homage to the divinity within oneself. It is a kind of meditation and affirmation of one’s commitment to the Jain path. And in the offering of food, the most striking difference between Jain and Hindu theology is illustrated. Hindus offer food to a form of divinity and then consume the food amongst themselves as prasad, or grace, a symbol of the divine blessing that comes from worship. Hindu worship, in other words, is a kind of transaction, in which the worshiper gives praise and thanks to the divine, and the divine, in return, bestows blessings. Jain deities, however, as wholly transcendent beings, do not bestow blessings in this fashion. Offering of food to Jain deities is understood as a form of renunciation–of showing one’s detachment from the things of this world. Food offered to Jain deities is therefore not consumed by the Jain community, but must leave the community–usually as charity to the poor from the surrounding communities (which, in India, are usually Hindus) (Babb 1996).

Other Jain rituals are of a more explicitly meditative nature, such as caitya-vandan, a rite which involves prostration before an image and the recitation of a variety of hymns and mantras from Jain scriptural texts. After this prostration and recitation, one stands in a meditative posture that is distinctive to Jainism, known as kayotsarga. In kayotsarga, one stands “with feet slightly apart, arms hanging down and slightly away from the body, palms turned inward, and eyes fixed in a meditative gaze (Cort 2001:66).” Liberated beings are often depicted in this posture in Jain art, for it is believed to be the position in which the Tirthankaras achieved liberation. While in this posture, one silently recites the Namokara Mantra, “the most sacred and widespread of all Jain praises (Cort 2001:66).”

Namo arihantanam
Namo siddhanam
Namo ayariyanam
Namo uvajjhayanam
Namo loe savvasahunam

To which the Murtipujaka Shvetambaras add:

Eso pañca namokkaro savvapavappanasano
Mamgalanam ca savvesim pa ḍ hamam havai mamgalam

This prayer is in the ancient Prakrit language of the Jain scriptures. (Prakrits are ancient vernacular forms of Sanskrit, from which modern northern Indian languages like Hindi, Bengali, and Gujarati are derived.) It means:

I bow before the worthy ones [the Jinas or Tirthankaras].
I bow before the perfected ones [all those who have attained liberation].
I bow before the leaders of the Jain order.
I bow before the teachers of the Jain order.
I bow before all the ascetics in the world.

The additional line recited by Murtipujaka Shvetambaras means:

This fivefold salutation, which destroys all bad karmas, is the best, the most auspicious of all auspicious things (Long 2009:114-115).

The Namokara Mantra is recited in many other contexts as well, in addition to caitya-vandan, and could perhaps be analogized with the Lord’s Prayer of Christianity. Many Jains perform caitya-vandan daily, as well as samayika. Samayika, orequanimity, is, of course, aimed at cultivating this mental state, which is so central to the Jain path to liberation. It involves practicing meditation for a period of roughly 48 minutes (Wiley 2004:184). This 48-minute period, which is known as a muhurta, is a traditional Indian unit of time, and is used in Hindu contexts as well.

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

There is no single, central institutional authority to which all Jains subscribe. The most basic religious institutional distinction is that between ascetics and laypersons. Ascetics are generally regarded as the ultimate religious authorities for Jains, and as embodiments of the ideals of Jainism. They are held in deep reverence by most Jains, but they are also observed very closely and the expectations of the laity that they uphold the standards of their chosen way of life are very high.

Jain ascetics are organized into branches known as gacchas. Gacchas are generally of a geographic character, though there are gacchas that overlap particular regions. They are generally distinguished by subtle differences in ascetic practice. If a disagreement arises within a gaccha over a question of practice, a new gaccha is usually the result. The likely origins of most gacchas today are such disagreements, as well as geographic separation arising from the wanderings of groups of monks from place to place. Gacchas are further subdivided into successively smaller groups that are known as samudayas, parivaras, and sangha ḍ as (Cort 2001:41).

In the modern period, particularly in the global Jain community outside of India, one can note a distinct rise in lay leadership, though there is evidence of prominent householders having always had an influential role in the wider Jain community. The running of Jain temples has always been largely a lay preoccupation, which, in the modern period, takes the form of boards of trustees made up of prominent donors and persons willing to give of their time and energy to ensure the smooth, continuous running of the institution and the transmission of Jain values to younger generations.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Two main types of challenge currently face the Jain community, one of which could be characterized as internal and the other as external.

Internally, there is sectarianism. The oldest schism in the Jain community is that between the Shvetambaras and the Digambaras. This schism, dating to roughly the second century CE, is based on the interpretation of the vow of aparigraha, or non-possession, which all Jain ascetics take upon joining the monastic order. Digambara Jain monks do not wear any clothing. Their only possession is a small whisk made of peacock feathers, which is used to sweep the ground where a monk walks or the space on which he is about to sit in order to prevent the accidental killing of insects. This, in fact, is the origin of the term Digambara, or “sky-clad.” Digambara nuns wear simple white robes and are not permitted to practice aparigraha to its logical extreme. Shvetambara, or “white-clad” Jains uphold a tradition in which both male and female ascetics wear simple white robes. They see aparigraha as more of a matter of one’s inward attitude or disposition, not requiring the kind of radical renunciation that the nude Digambara monk exhibits.

Their disagreement over the necessity of monastic nudity results in other differences in the teachings of these two communities. Because the Digambaras see monastic nudity as a necessary pre-requisite for liberation from rebirth, and because women are not allowed to follow this practice, Digambara tradition teaches that in order for a woman to become liberated, she must be reborn as a man. Shvetambaras reject this view, and indeed hold, on the basis of their scriptures, that both Mahavira’s mother and Mallinatha, the nineteenth Tirthankara, were women who attained liberation. Partially on this basis, the Digambaras do not accept the validity of the Shvetambara scriptural canon. These two groups of Jains also treat the images used in the worship of Jinas, or enlightened beings, differently, with the Shvetambaras adorning the images that they use with various decorations. Digambaras leave their images of the Jinas unadorned, or “nude” (Jaini 1992).

The next major divisions in the Jain community occurred in the medieval period. Lonka Shah (c. 1400-1500), a Jain lay scholar and calligrapher who was copying the Shvetambara scriptures, came to believe on the basis of his studies that the use of images, or murtis, in worship violated the principle of nonviolence: the central moral principle of Jainism (Dundas 2002:246). His efforts to draw Jains away from murtipuja, or image-worship, inspired the emergence of two Shvetambara groups: the Terapanthis and Sthanakavasis.

The Terapanthis and Sthanakavasis follow Lonka in rejecting murtipuja, distinguishing them from the mainstream Murtipujaka (or image-using) Shvetambaras. The difference between the Terapanthis and the Sthanakavasis is that the former use monastic facilities, whereas the Sthanakavasis believe that dwelling in monasteries, too, involves violations of nonviolence (due to the violence involved in building a structure), as well as creating attachment to a particular dwelling place.

Around the same period as the emergence of the Terapanthis and Sthanakavasis from the Shvetambara community, divisions emerged in the northern Digambara community on the issue of bhattarakas. Bhattarakas are monks employed in a monastery to interact with the laity and oversee administrative matters. In order to avoid giving offense or drawing unwanted attention to themselves when interacting with the laity, bhattarakas do not observe traditional Digambara monastic nudity, and instead wear simple orange robes. Seeing the use of bhattarakas as a violation of traditional Digambara ascetic strictures, a group of Digambara Jains formed a separate community, known as the Terapanthis (who are not to be confused with the non-image-using Shvetambara community of the same name). Those northern Digambaras who did not object to using bhattarakas are called Bisapanthis. The Digambaras of the south are undivided and use bhattarakas.

A growing number of Jains, particularly outside of India, decry intra-Jain sectarianism as counterproductive to the more pressing goal of promoting Jain values to the world at large. A comment that one often hears is that it is shameful for such a small community, especially one dedicated to peace and nonviolence, to be so divided by disagreement over practice and the ownership of temple facilities and pilgrimage sites. One means by which contemporary Jains combat sectarianism is to develop institutions that are explicitly non-sectarian, or of an “all Jain” nature. Two such institutions are Siddhachalam, established in Blairstown, New Jersey in 1983 by the monk Sushil Kumar, and the International Summer School of Jain Studies, in India, which hosts college students, graduate students, and professors from a variety of countries and travels to a range of Jain institutions, crossing sectarian boundaries and giving students a sense of the rich internal variety of Jainism.

Externally, a growing number of Jains see the challenges facing all of humanity–such as environmental degradation, war, terrorism, and inter-religious conflict–as issues to which a distinctively Jain response is needed. Such a this-worldly orientation on the part of a religion that has traditionally been more about transcending the world than changing it – an “engaged Jainism” analogous, in many ways, to engaged Buddhism – marks a change in the way that Jainism is conceived by its followers (Chapple 2002:98-99). A growing number of scholars not raised in the Jain tradition have also begun to see this tradition as an intellectual resource, both for deep ecology and religious pluralism (Chapple 1993 and 2002; Long 2009:117-72; Tobias 1991). Regarding religious pluralism, the Jain ideals most often invoked are the doctrines of relativity mentioned above (anekantavada, naya-vada, and syadvada). In regard to deep ecology, the Jain principle most often invoked is the teaching Parasparopagraho Jivanam, which literally means “living beings helping one another,” but that is generally translated as interconnectedness or interdependence. “This principle recognizes that all life forms in this universe are bound together by mutual support and interdependence.” (Dr. Sulekh Jain, personal communication).

REFERENCES

Babb, Lawrence A. 1996. Absent Lord: Ascetics and Kings in a Jain Ritual Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bronkhorst, Johannes. 2007. Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India. Leiden: Brill.

Chapple, Christopher Key. 1993. Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Chapple, Christopher Key. 2002. Jainism and Ecology: Nonviolence in the Web of Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chapple, Christopher Key. 2003. Reconciling Yogas: Haribhadra’s Collection of Views on Yoga. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cort, John. 1998. Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Cultures in Indian History. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cort, John. 2001. Jains in the World: Religious Values and Ideology in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dundas, Paul. 2002. The Jains. London: Routledge.

Jaini, Padmanabh S. 1979. The Jaina Path of Purification. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Jaini, Padmanabh S. 1992. Gender and Salvation: Jaina Debates on the Spiritual Liberation of Women. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Jaini, Padmanabh S. 2000. Collected Papers on Jaina Studies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Kelting, Whitney M. 2005. Singing to the Jinas: Jain Laywomen, Mandal Singing, and the Negotiations of Jain Devotion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Long, Jeffery D. 2009. Jainism: An Introduction. London: I.B. Tauris.

Parikh, Vastupal. 2002. Jainism and the New Spirituality. Toronto: Peace Publications.

Tatia, Nathmal (trans.). 1994. That Which Is: Tattvartha Sutra. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Tobias, Michael. 1991. Life Force: The World of Jainism. Fremont, CA: Jain Publishing Company.

Vallely, Anne. 2002. Guardians of the Transcendent: An Ethnography of a Jain Ascetic Community. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Wiley, Kristi. 2004. The Historical Dictionary of Jainism. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Post Date:
17 December 2012

JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION TIMELINE

1928:  Randall James Hamilton Zwinge was born in Toronto, Canada.

1950s:  Randi wrote an astrological column for a Montreal newspaper under the name “Zo-ran.”

1956:  Randi performed a magic act on The Today Show.

1960s:  Randi performed in night clubs in Japan and the Philippines.

1970s:  Randi helped to found the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

1972:  Randi exposed Uri Geller on The Tonight Show.

1986:  Randi exposed televangelist Peter Popoff’s healing performance on The Tonight Show.

1986:  Randi was awarded a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation grant.

1988:  Randi retired from stage magic.

1991:  Uri Geller filed lawsuit against Randi and the CSICOP.

1993:  Eldon Byrd filed lawsuit against Randi.

1995:  Randi was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from the University of Indianapolis.

1996:  Randi founded the James Randi Educational Foundation.

1996:  Randi was awarded the CSICOP’s Distinguished Skeptic Award.

2003:  The first Amaz!ng Meeting was held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

2007:  Randi received a Lifetime Achievement Award.

2010:  Randi announced that he was gay.

2011:  Randi conducted a speaking tour across Canada.

2012:  Randi conducted a speaking tour throughout Europe.

2013:  Randi married his partner of many years, Deyvi Pena.

2015:  Randi retired from his foundation are giving up operational control in 2009.

2020 (October 21):  James Randi died.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

On August 7, 1928, Randall James Hamilton Zwinge was born in Toronto, Canada. The oldest of three children born to Randall and Marie Alice Zwinge, he weighed a mere two pounds and three ounces at birth. Growing up in the Leaside neighborhood of Toronto, Zwinge was a reportedly a shy, but very curious and intelligent child, scoring 168 on IQ tests and inventing a pop-up toaster at the age of nine. Having placed out of the sixth through eighth grades in a time prior to “gifted” educational programs, he was given admission to the reference room of the local library. There he educated himself on a number of subjects, such as mathematics and hieroglyphics (Malmgren 1998:5; Orwen 1986). Randall skipped school frequently and, one on such afternoon, he attended a performance by the magician Harry Blackstone Sr. at the Royal Alexandra Theater in Toronto, which proved to be a life-changing event for the young boy. Shortly thereafter, at the age of thirteen, Zwinge was hit by a car while riding his bicycle, breaking his back and forcing him to spend thirteen months in a body cast. During that time, he immersed himself in magic books and practiced simple tricks of illusion and lock picking (Orwen 1986). He has reflected upon this period of his life, stating that “What I have recognized…is that it is the kids who don’t quite fit the social picture who go into magic” (Jaroff 2001:2).

Zwinge developed his apparent interest in both magic and skepticism at an early age. When he was fifteen, having heard of miraculous healings taking place at a local church, he decided to attend a service. During the procession he recognized deceptive tricks employed by the preacher who, with the aid of assistants, obtained information regarding attendees’ ailments prior to the “healings.” They merely read the ailments from a slip of paper to the unsuspecting audience. Outraged at the idea of using magic to deceive people into believing they have been divinely healed, Zwinge climbed on the stage and confronted the preacher. He was promptly arrested on the charge of disturbing a religious meeting and taken to the police station where “he vowed that he would someday fight back against those who defiled his art” (Jaroff 2001:2). Shortly after this incident, Zwinge moved with his family to Montreal where he secured a job in a test tube factory; however, the family returned to Toronto the following year. He attended high school at Oakwood Collegiate Institute, but he dropped out at the age of seventeen, reportedly after refusing to complete a final examination because he “didn’t like one of the questions” (Orwen 1986). After his departure from high school, Zwinge joined a small carnival with which he toured Ontario and Quebec for two summers as Prince Ibis, a mind-reader. From there Zwinge performed in various nightclubs across Canada under the stage name “The Great Randall.” It was during this time that Randall received his “break.” After a performance in Quebec City, two policemen approached him and, jokingly, put handcuffs on him and challenged him to free himself. Dramatizing the dare, Randall stepped into one side of police car and emerged from the other side with the handcuffs unlocked. The officers then upped the ante by taking him to the police station and challenging him to escape from a locked jail cell, which he did. A local newspaper ran a story the following day titled “The Amazing Randi Escapes from Quebec Prison,” thus earning him a degree of notoriety as well as the title he would carry with him for the next several decades: “The Amazing Randi.” Zwinge would legally change his name to James Randi shortly thereafter (Orwen 1986; Jaroff 2001:2).

Randi established great renown as an escape artist in the decade following his stint in the Quebec prison. In the mid-1950s he appeared on the CBS television program “It’s Magic,” during which he escaped from a straightjacket while suspended upside down 110 feet above Broadway (Jaroff 2001). The press coverage surrounding his CBS performance propelled him to high levels of visibility unprecedented in his career. He performed on The Today Show on February 7, 1956, remaining submerged in a swimming pool in a sealed coffin for 104 minutes, thus breaking the record of 94 minutes previously set by Harry Houdini (“James Randi” n.d.). Randi went on to make dozens of similar television appearances throughout the decade, in addition to writing an astrological column in a Montreal tabloid under the nom de plume “Zo-ran.” According to Randi, the weekly horoscopes were simply clippings from similar columns published years before that he pieced together. He became astonished at the number of readers who wrote to the newspaper in response to his forecasts, claiming that they had been perfectly accurate. It was these reactions which led Randi to, as he remarked, “‘hang up the scissors [and] put away the paste pot, ‘” having decided that believers will adopt any prediction made by a person claiming to be endowed with supernatural abilities (Dawkins 1998:123).

Randi began touring the Philippines and Japan in the late 1950s and early 1960s, performing in various nightclubs before again
settling in the United States. He hosted a number of radio and television programs throughout the remainder of the decade, including “The Amazing Randi Show” on a New York radio station and the children’s television program “Wonderama” (“James Randi” n.d.). In the early 1970s Randi’s career took a sharp turn when he began investigating the paranormal claims of the world-renowned Israeli psychic Uri Geller. Geller mesmerized large crowds of people by bending spoons and making various objects levitate, claiming a supernatural origin for effects that Randi considered simple magic tricks. Randi, along with several prominent scientists and skeptics, founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) in response to the widespread acceptance of Uri Geller’s claims (CSICOP was renamed the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in 2006). Randi began appearing on television talk shows, showing how the psychokinetic effects for which Geller had become famous could be replicated by a magician using simple optical illusions. These various public appearances gave much greater visibility and legitimacy to skepticism. A major breakthrough came in 1972 when Randi teamed up with talk show host Johnny Carson to expose Uri Geller publicly. Geller was scheduled to appear and demonstrate his psychic abilities on The Tonight Show by correctly selecting from several metal containers one whichwas filled with water. Randi speculated that Geller would discreetly bump the table with his leg a few times, making all of the canisters but the one weighed down with water move. Therefore, he visited the set prior to Geller’s arrival and painted a substance on the bottoms of the cans which would render them unaffected by slight movements of the table. Appearing as though by accident, Geller did knock the table a few times and twenty-two minutes into his performance, announced that he was feeling ill and was unable to continue with his demonstration (Malmgren 1998). Geller’s career went into decline thereafter, and Randi began authoring a book titled The Truth About Uri Geller. The 1982 biography contests Geller’s claims regarding his self-proclaimed psychic abilities. Geller filed a fifteen-million dollar lawsuit against Randi and the CSICOP in 1991; however, the charges against the organization were dismissed when Geller’s claims were found to be frivolous, and he was ordered to pay a substantial fine (“James Randi” n.d.).

In the decade following the Uri Geller exposé, Randi continued to debunk paranormal claims and the individuals behind them, while also continuing to perform as “The Amazing Randi,” enjoying celebrity status both as a magician and paranormal skeptic. His fame was elevated even further in 1986 when he exposed televangelist Peter Popoff’s claims of channeling God’s power to heal theill. Randi, recognizing the same one-ahead deceptive methods used by the preacher he had challenged at age fifteen, but on a larger scale, set up an elaborate plan in which several volunteers acted as ailment-stricken audience members. Randi soon discovered that Popoff’s wife, Elizabeth, carrying a transmitter device in her purse, would approach members of the audience prior to the service and strike up seemingly casual conversation. As she spoke to the attendees, obtaining their names, home addresses, and various reasons for attending the service, Peter sat backstage and transcribed the information. Throughout the show, Elizabeth would guide Peter, who wore a hidden receiver in his ear, to the audience members with whom she had spoken. Randi’s team, equipped with surveillance and radio frequency devices, were able to record these conversations between Elizabeth and her husband throughout the show. Randi made the findings public on April 22, 1986 on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, during which he played a segment of one of Popoff’s services alongside the corresponding segment of audio recording, revealing how Peter’s words and movements matched Elizabeth’s instructions. Following the exposé, Popoff disputed Randi’s findings, claiming them to be entirely fabricated. However, donations to his ministry dropped severely, and it subsequently declared bankruptcy (Dart 1986; Malmgren 1998; Jaroff 2001).

As the careers of the psychics, astrologers, faith healers, and numerous others with self-proclaimed paranormal abilities exposed by Randi went into decline, his own career and fame soared. In the same years as his exposé of Peter Popoff, Randi was awarded a fellowship from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for his feats in debunking claims of the paranormal. He received a grant of $272,000 to assist in further work. However, he has on several occasions noted that the majority of his grant money was spent defending himself against a number of lawsuits, including that filed by Uri Geller (“About James Randi” n.d.; Jaroff 2001). Nonetheless, Randi received numerous other awards and honors throughout the latter half of the 1980s and the 1990s, including a fellowship created in his name by the Academy of Magical Arts & Sciences in Los Angeles for preserving magic as a form of entertainment rather than deception. In the late 1980s, he retired from stage magic. In 1995, he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from the University of Indianapolis. Although he had since become estranged from the group that he had helped to found, in 1996 the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal awarded Randi their Distinguished Skeptic Award. That same year, he founded a new organization through which he could continue his work, which he called the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) through which he has continued to work (“About James Randi” n.d.; “James Randi” n.d.).

Throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium, Randi authored several books, traveled extensively, appearing on talk shows and speaking at conferences, and received a number of prestigious awards, including a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2007. While little of his personal life beyond that pertaining to his career has been recorded, questions regarding Randi’s marital status have been raised repeatedly throughout his career. He announced his homosexuality in 2010, at the age of 81, on a posting titled “How To Say It?” on his blog, Swift, attributing his delayed “coming out” to having grown up in a culture opposed to homosexuality. Furthermore, he credited his decision to make his sexuality public to having recently seen a biographical film based on the life of Harvey Milk (Randi 2010). Randi married his long-time partner, artist Devyi Pena (birth name: Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga), a gay man who claimed to have fled Venezuela in the face of death threats in 2013 (“Randi Got Married” 2013; Fox 2020).

James Randi retired from his foundation in 2015 after giving up operational control in 2009. He died on October 21, 2020 (Fox 2020; “Canadian magician” 2020;” “James Randi in Memoriam 2020”)

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

James Randi’s mission of debunking claims of the paranormal rests largely on his belief that magic should be utilized as a form of entertainment, rather than a means for personal gain or deception. Randi has defined magic as an art form in which an understanding is established between the magician and audience members that the effects performed by the magician are tricks, or illusions, and that nothing supernatural is occurring on stage (Malmgren 1997). He has dedicated a large portion of his life to fulfilling the vow he made at age fifteen to refute those who tarnished his art by using it to back what he believes are baseless paranormal claims. As he asserted in the documentary about his life and career, An Honest Liar (Fox 2020):

People who are stealing money from the public, cheating them and misinforming them — that’s the kind of thing that I’ve been fighting all my life,” he said in the 2014 documentary “An Honest Liar,” directed by Tyler Measom and Justin Weinstein. “Magicians are the most honest people in the world: They tell you they’re going to fool you, and then they do it.

However, he draws a distinction between two types of people claiming to possess paranormal abilities: those who knowingly do so and are therefore guilty of overt deception, and people who truly believe they possess a gift, or “innocents.” Randi has expressed his unwillingness to challenge this latter classification, stating “give me a faker, give me someone who appears before and is lying, who is attempting to fool me, to deceive me, or to deceive anyone else…Please don’t give me the innocent who really believe they have the powers. They’re the difficult ones to handle; a true believer is a terrible enemy, but the fakers I can handle” (Randi 2005).

Randi has not only expanded upon his views and attitudes regarding the persons whom he seeks to expose, but also his beliefs in reference to those who trust in the psychics, astrologers, spoon benders, and faith healers he investigates. He claims that certain people are simply attracted to the unexplainable and looking for answers which science is unable to deliver to provide a sense of security and command over the uncertainties of life. Furthermore, he states that those who use magic to deceive cater to these insecurities and fears in people, and some are more susceptible than others. Randi notes that even when a psychics predictions are incorrect the vast majority of the time and there is overwhelming evidence against his or her legitimacy, a susceptible person will be likely to overlook the mistakes and elevate the few correct statements or forecasts. He attributes some of the vulnerability in people today toward belief in paranormal claims to the expansion of technology and the “‘easy access to nonsense,’” proposing that with so much material of this nature readily available, people are able to tease out what they find preposterous and plausible (Cohen 2001). Even so, Randi ties every explanation back to the need for most people to believe in something supernatural, a category in which he includes religion, stating that “its embrace is of the same nature as acceptance of astrology, ESP, prophecy, dowsing, and the other myriad of strange beliefs we handle here every day” (Randi 2003).

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP AND PRACTICES

In the mid-1970s, James Randi aided in the founding of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
(CSICOP), an organization designed to scientifically investigate claims of the paranormal and increase awareness and skepticism of such claims. The CSICOP, later renamed the Committee for Scientific Inquiry, has included members of various fields of expertise, including astronomer Carl Sagan, the well-known educator Bill Nye, behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner, and skeptic and secular humanist Paul Kurtz (“About CSI” n.d.). Although a founding figure, Randi distanced from the organization after a disagreement with the leadership. Following his exposé of Uri Geller and the resulting lawsuit against Randi, he was advised to refrain from commenting upon Geller as the leaders of the organization sought to avoid a second suit being filed against the CSICOP, as well as Randi personally. Randi refused and resigned his position; however, he still maintained an congenial relationship with the organization (“James Randi” n.d.).

Randi worked independently until 1996 when he established the James Randi Educational Foundation after receiving a donation of two million dollars from a computer firm executive who Randi has declined to identify. The Foundation reportedly consists of over three hundred members and a five-person staff who aim “to help people defend themselves from paranormal and pseudoscientific claims” (Malmgren 1998; “About the Foundation” n.d.). The JREF fulfills its mission in several different ways, most notably by challenging claims on an individual basis, famously offering a one-million dollar prize to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under conditions agreed to by both parties. The JREF’s website offers a detailed list of eight rules for application (“Applicant Rules” n.d.):

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: The Applicant must state clearly, in advance, and the Applicant and the JREF must agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration so far as time, location and other variables are concerned, and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.
2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not acceptable.
3. The Applicant agrees that all materials and peripheral properties (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the test procedure, the protocol, and the actual testing, may be used freely by the JREF.
4. In all cases, the Applicant will be required to perform a Preliminary Test in a location where a properly authorized representative of the JREF can attend. This Preliminary Test is intended to determine if the Applicant is likely to perform as promised during the Formal Test, using the agreed-upon protocol. To date, no applicant has passed the Preliminary Test, and therefore no Formal Test has yet been conducted. At any time prior to the Formal Test, the JREF reserves the right to re-negotiate the protocol if issues are discovered that would prevent a fair and unbiased test. After an agreement is reached on the protocol, no part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without an amended agreement, signed by all parties concerned.
5. All of the Applicant’s expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the Challenge, are the sole responsibility of the Applicant. Neither the JREF nor any representative of the JREF will bear any of the costs.
6. All applications and other correspondence must be typewritten or printed by computer and in English. Any English translations must be accompanied by certification of qualifications of the translator.
7. Following an unsuccessful test or the rejection of their application, the Applicant must wait 12 months before applying again. The Applicant may not apply more than twice.
8. By accepting this Challenge, the Applicant waives any and all claims against James Randi, the JREF, the JREF’s employees, officers, directors, and any other person. This waiver includes, but is not limited to, injury, accident, and damage of any kind, including damage and/or loss of a physical, emotional, financial, and/or professional nature. Notwithstanding anything else in this paragraph, should the Claimant pass the Formal Test, the Claimant does not waive any claims against the JREF that might be necessary to enforce payment of the Prize.

In addition to the Million-Dollar Prize, the organization continues to challenge paranormal claims in much the same way that Randi has throughout his career as a scientific investigator, specifically targeting individuals and claims supported by media organizations. Randi and members of the JREF share the findings of investigations and research and generally promote awareness of scientific skepticism by speaking at conferences across the globe. In 2011, Randi embarked on a cross-country speaking tour of Canada and followed up with a tour throughout Europe the following year.

The JREF further supports the “skeptical community” by coordinating its own conferences, most notably The Amaz!ng Meeting, a three-day “celebration of science, skepticism and critical thinking” (“About the Foundation” n.d.) First held in 2003 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, the conference attracted a much larger crowd than had been expected and has since been held annually or bi-annually in locations varying from Los Vegas, to London, to Sydney, Australia. In 2006, in response to the popularity of the four previous Amaz!ing Meetings, the JREF held its first Amaz!ing Adventure, a weeklong assembly of skeptics which took place on a cruise liner through the Bermuda Triangle. The JREF has organized four subsequent Amaz!ng Adventures to Alaska, the Galapagos Islands, Mexico, and the Caribbean (“The Amaz!ng Meeting” n.d.).

Finally, the James Randi Educational Foundation lends support to educators, students, and up-and-coming skeptical organizations by providing grants, scholarships, and teaching modules designed to bolster critical and skeptical thought among interested parties. Members and non-members alike are encouraged to participate in the Foundation’s forum, a host for the online discussion of topics varying in nature from religion, philosophy, and the paranormal to art, literature, and current events.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

James Randi has faced opposition from both those who he has exposed and from the ranks of skeptics. He has on numerous occasions had lawsuits brought against him throughout his lengthy career. Uri Geller alone has challenged Randi with six lawsuits, accusing him of committing libel. In only one of the cases was Randi actually convicted; however, the trial took place in Japan and he was convicted of a lesser charge of “insult,” which is not recognized in courts outside of Japan and China. Randi was thus ordered by the court to pay only a fraction of one percent of the amount for which Geller had sued, and the two eventually reached a settlement outside of court (Randi 2007). In 1991, Geller simultaneously attempted to sue Randi and the CSICOP after Randi had purportedly compared Geller’s paranormal abilities to magic tricks printed on cereal boxes. The CSICOP maintained that while Randi was highly involved in the organization as a founding member, it was not responsible for his statement. The court ultimately agreed with the CSICOP and ordered Geller to pay damages to the organization. Randi and Geller settled their dispute outside of court, reaching an agreement that neither party has disclosed (“Uri Geller Libel Suit Dismissed” 1994).

Randi and the JREF consistently receive hate mail, the majority of which is from followers of the individuals they target. Following his exposé of Peter Popoff, Popoff aptly denied the allegations, accusing Randi of attacking God’s work. However, he eventually admitted that he had communicated with his wife throughout the show and used prayer cards and other means of gathering information about audience members beforehand, but he nonetheless maintained his ability to deliver divine messages and channel God’s healing capabilities (Dart 1986).

Furthermore, Randi has been criticized for his lack of scientific training and, therefore, the validity of his claims. He and others
have combatted these allegations by pointing out that while he has not undergone any formal scientific training, he is not acting as a scientist. Rather, he has an extensive understanding of magic and how magic is performed, which forms the basis for a large number of his investigations. As Leon Jaroff, a personal friend of Randi’s and a former CSICOP member, remarked, Randi has been “trained in the art of deception…He knows what to look for when he’s investigating a fraud” (Malmgren 1998). Randi has also acknowledged his inability to definitively investigate all paranormal claims that lie outside of his realm of expertise, stating that throughout investigations of the paranormal, “JREF may consult with experts, including statisticians, magicians, and others with specialized knowledge relevant to the claim” (“Conditions of the One Million Dollar Challenge” n.d.).

However, not all of the charges have involved Randi’s work directly. In fact, many of the allegations brought against Randi have involved “personal attacks on [his] character” (Malmgren 1998). In 1993, Eldon Byrd, a scientist and friend of Uri Geller, pressed libel, slander, and invasion of privacy charges against Randi for calling him a “child molester” in a magazine article. Byrd, who claimed to have suffered psychological distress from the comment, had been arrested a decade earlier for possession of child pornography, but was never charged with or convicted of child molestation. The jury sided with Byrd; however, Randi was not ordered to pay any damages.

Randi’s character, remarks, and personal beliefs have come under scrutiny both within and beyond the courtroom. A proclaimed atheist, Randi has on numerous occasions made remarks demonstrating his disbelief in specific religious, particularly Biblical, claims, which have been criticized for being overly abrasive. In his 2003 essay “Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I’m a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright,” for example, he commented that he considers the impregnation of “a mid-East virgin…by a ghost of some sort” which resulted in the birth of “a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes” to be farfetched beyond the capacity of belief. He goes on to state in the essay that his personal faith rests in “the basic goodness” of humanity rather than religion and, further, that his own religious beliefs should be considered separate from his work, denying that the James Randi Educational Foundation is an atheistic/agnostic organization (Randi 2003).

Finally, Randi has endured criticism even from with the skeptic community. His debunking agenda has put off some skeptics who simply demanded that those purporting to possess paranormal or spiritual powers simply had not made their case. For this group Randi was a “pseudo-skeptic,” for whom debunking was more important than dispassionate assessment (Truzzi 1987). As one critic put the matter: “Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul” (Goodspeed 2004).

James Randi and his foundation occupy a complicated, self-constructed niche that inherently involves role conflict. He is a professional magician and, particularly during the early part of his career, he worked as a very successful stage magician. Throughout his life he has been opposed to the use of performance magic as the basis for claims to magical (paranormal, supernatural powers). Personally, he is an avowed atheist who has little use for organized religion. Randi also identifies himself as a skeptic, particularly with respect to religious claims based on performance magic. He adheres to the principle, often cited by skeptics, “An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof” (Truzzi 1978:11). However, he has gone beyond skepticism to an active role as a debunker of paranormal/supernatural claims. It is this assemblage of positions that has resulted in his being criticized by religious healers and their followers for maligning their spiritual leaders, by skeptics for being an ideologue masquerading as a skeptic, and by scientists for pseudo-scientific methodologies. Despite these numerous and varying criticisms and controversies, Randi soldiered on (Horowitz 2020). As he stated in an interview with TIME magazine, “no blackmail, no threats, can cause me to back away from my chosen work” (Jaroff 2001).

REFERENCES

“About CSI.” n.d. CSICOP.org. Accessed from http://www.csicop.org/about/about_csi on 26 November 2013.

“About James Randi.” n.d. Randi.org. Accessed from http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-james-randi.html on 16 November, 2013.

“About the Foundation.” n.d. Randi.org. Accessed from http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html on 26 November 2013.

“Application Rules.” n.d. Randi.org  Accessed from http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html on 26 November 2013.

“Canadian magician, skeptic The Amazing Randi dead at 92.” 2020. Associated Press, October 22. Accessed from https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/obit-magician-randi-1.5772234 on 25 October 2020.

“Conditions of the Million Dollar Challenge.” n.d. Randi.org. Accessed from
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html on 26 November 2013.

Cohen, Patricia. 2001. “Poof! You’re a Skeptic The Amazing Randi’s Vanishing Humbug.” New York Times, February 17. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/arts/poof-you-re-a-skeptic-the-amazing-randi-s-vanishing-humbug.html?src=pm on 26 November 2013.

Dart, John. “Skeptics’ Revelations: Faith Healer Receives ‘Heavenly’ Messages Via Electronic Receiver, Debunkers Charge.” 1986. Los Angeles Times, May 11. Accessed from http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-11/local/me-5518_1_faith-healer/2 on 26 November 2013.

Dawkins, Richard. 1998. Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. New York, NY: Mariner Books.

Fox, Margalit. 2020. “James Randi, Magician Who Debunked Paranormal Claims, Dies at 92.” New York Times, October 21. Accessed from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/obituaries/james-randi-dead.html on 25 October 2020.

Goodspeed, Michael. 2004. “The Relentless Hypocrisy of James Randi.” Rense.com. Accessed from http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm on 4 January 2004.

Horowitz, Mitch. 2020. “The man who destroyed skepticism.” Boingbong.net, October 26. Accessed from https://boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the-man-who-destroyed-skepticism.html?fbclid=IwAR0LVSNjIsgA-CN5qBf2XoBKqnD92Ce8cnJcDDFeHfH-516miacH49YpmI4 on 29 October 2020.

“James Randi.” n.d. “All About Magicians.” Accessed from http://www.all-about-magicians.com/james-randi.html on 16 November 2013.

James Randi. 2004. “Confessions of a Quackbuster” Blogspot.com, December 20. Accessed from http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2004/12/james-randi-bio.html/ on 16 November 2013.

“James Randi in Memoriam,” 1928–2020.” 2020. Skeptic. Accessed from https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/20-10-24/#Skeptical-Movement on 25 October 2020.

Jaroff, Leon. 2001. “Fighting Against Flimflam.” TIME Magazine, June 24. Accessed from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,149448,00.html on 26 November 2013.

Malmgren, Jeanne. 1998. “The ‘Quack’ Hunter.” St. Petersburg Times, April 14. Accessed from http://web.archive.org/web/20090415210052/http://www.sptimes.com/Floridian/41498/The__quack__hunter.html on 26 November 2013.

Orwen, Patricia. 1986. “The Amazing Randi.” The Toronto Star. August 23. Accessed from http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-76032.html on 16 November 2013.

Randi, James. 2005. “ Fakers and Innocents: The One Million Dollar Challenge and Those Who Try for It.” 2005. CSICOP.org. Accessed from http://www.csicop.org/si/show/fakers_and_innocents_the_one_million_dollar_challenge_and_those_who_try_for/ on 26 November 2013.

Randi, James. 2010. “How To Say It?” Swift. March 21. Accessed from
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/914-how-to-say-it.html on 16 November 2013.

Randi, James. 2003. “Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I’m a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright.” Swift, July 25. Accessed from
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/653-randi-on-religion-and-the-jref.html on 26 November 2013.

“Randi Got Married.” 2013. Why Evolution is True. WordPress.com. Accessed from https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/randi-got-married/ on 16 November 2013.

“The Amaz!ng Meeting.” n.d. Randi.org. Accessed from http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/amazing-meeting.html on 26 November 2013.

Truzzi, Marcello. 1987. “On Pseudo-Skepticism.” Zetetic Scholar 12/13:3-4

Truzzi, Marcello. 1978. “On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification.” Zetetic Scholar 1:11-22.

West, Norris P. “Magician Defamed Scientist, Jury Rules.” 1993. The Baltimore Sun, June 5. Accessed from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,149448,00.html on 2 December 2013.

Post Date:
4 January 2014
Update:
27 October 2020

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES TIMELINE

1852 (February 16):  Charles Taze Russell was born in Allegheny, Pennsylvania.

1869 (November 8):  Joseph Franklin Rutherford was born in Versailles, Missouri.

1872:  Russell founded the International Bible Students Association in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

1874:  The year designated by Russell for Christ’s invisible return.

1880s:  Russell organized the first Bible Society Association meetings.

1884:  Zion’s Watchtower Tract Society was incorporated.

1914:  The year Russell expected Christ’s visible second coming.

1916 (October 31):  Russell passed away.

1919:  Joseph Franklin Rutherford succeeded Russell as president of the society and adopted the slogan, “Millions Now Living Will Never Die!”

1939:  (November 1) Rutherford published an article in The Watchtower on “neutrality,” advising members to avoid involvement in political affairs.

1995 (November 1):  The monthly issue of The Watchtower adjusted apocalyptic expectations by redefining the “last generation” more inclusively.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

Charles Taze Russell was the second of five children born to Joseph Lytel Russell and Ann Eliza Birney in Allegheny, Pennsylvania in1852. The Russells were a Presbyterian, middle-class family of cloth merchants. Russell inherited the family business, and under his leadership, it became extremely successful. He subsequently sold the six retail stores at great profit in order to fund his publishing and preaching activities. As a young man, he had briefly drifted away from Calvinist Presbyterianism, in favor of the Arminian influenced Methodist Episcopalian church. For a time he lost his faith completely and then briefly explored a number of Asian religions, including Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Taoism. After these youthful explorations, however, he was formatively influenced by the Millerites, or Adventists, as they came to be known. Beginning in 1831, William Miller, a Baptist preacher, had acquired many followers with his scripturally based predictions that Christ would return to Earth in 1844 and the apocalypse would then follow. When 1844 passed uneventfully, which is termed the “Great Disappointment,” many followers left, although the movement survived. Some Adventists recalculated the date of the impending apocalypse as occurring in 1874 or 1875.

In 1870, Russell attended a speech by Adventist preacher Jonas Wendell, who impressed Russell with his biblical knowledge and prediction that Christ would return in 1873 or 1874. Russell formed close friendships with other Adventist preachers, George Storrs and George Stetson, who, like Russell himself, engaged in an intense study and analysis of the Bible. In 1872, Russell launched the Bible Study movement when he organized the first meeting of the International Bible Students Association in Pittsburgh, PA. The Bible Study movement quickly spread to other cities and towns, and gathered hundreds of followers.

A major development in Russell’s faith occurred in 1876 when he encountered the writings of Nelson Barbour, Barbour, an Adventist, claimed that the Milleniumium had begun, and that Christ was already living invisibly on earth. Earlier that year, Russell’s Bible Study group had reached the same conclusion. Russell soon arranged a meeting with Barbour whose biblical chronology convinced Russell that the Rapture would take place in 1878, to be followed by an apocalypse that would restore the faithful to kingship with Christ on earth and destroy the unfaithful. Russell immediately sold his business interests, which yielded a substantial fortune, in order to finance his religious activities. He financed, and became a co-author on, Barbour’s book, Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World (1877).

Barbour and Russell then began preaching and publishing together. (Barbour and Russell, 1877) Their partnership lasted several years, but, when the expected 1878 date passed without incident, Russell broke with Barbour theologically and withdrew his financial backing. In 1879, Russell founded his own periodical, Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, which eventually became the major Jehovah’s Witness publication, The Watch Tower. Barbour went on to found his own congregation, The Church of the Strangers.

Following the uneventful passing of the 1878 date, Russell launched himself into an ever recurring process of revision. (Bowman 1995; Penton 1985) At first he said that Christ’s presence was invisibly felt on earth; the souls of the “anointed” humanity would immediately rise to heaven upon their deaths. Later, he “recalculated” the date of the rapture, setting it for 1914. Although once again, the rapture did not materialize, the advent of World War I, lent some credibility to Russell’s prediction. Throughout the rest of his life, Russell predicted and revised, found new associates with whom to publish, and broke with these associates as the predictions failed. This pattern of short-term associations carried over into his marriage. His wife and fellow editor, Mary Frances Russell, whom he had married in 1880, left him in 1889, claiming that he refused to share editorial responsibility with her. She subsequently divorced him in 1904.

While Russell’s numerous predictions of Christ’s return were not confirmed by visible, earthly events, Russell did launch the widely successful Bible Study movement. He organized the first Bible Study Association in Pittsburgh, PA in 1872. Nine years later he founded the Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society. Russell subsequently wrote and published extensively about biblical interpretation, with his accumulated writings tallying about 50,000 pages. It is estimated that his six volume tome, entitled Studies in the Scriptures (originally titled Millennial Dawn), was read by twenty million people. The tall and magnetic preacher, with flowing beard and handsome face, attracted large crowds as he lectured extensively throughout first the United States, and in England.

After Russell’s death in 1916, although there were many schisms among the Bible Study groups and publishing houses, one Bible Study group dominated. Under the leadership of Joseph Franklin Rutherford, it was incorporated as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Jehovah’s Witness organization, with Rutherford serving as president. Rutherford had been raised in a Baptist family as a child and gone on to law school in his early twenties. Following graduation, he worked as a trial lawyer, public prosecutor, and substitute judge in Missouri, which gave rise to his being called “Judge” Rutherford. He encountered Russell’s writings in 1894, and twelve years later was baptized as a member of Jehovah’s Witness. Rutherford later became legal Counsel for the Watchtower Society in 1907 and one of its Directors in 1916, the year that Russell died. Rutherford reorganized this society of believers into a lasting and stable Jehovah’s Witnesses organization (Harrison 1979; Stroup1945).

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

Jehovah’s Witness belief is non-Trinitarian, millenarian, apocalyptic, restorationist and biblically based. Unlike many Christian denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses neither accept a Trinitarian Godhead, nor do they believe in Jesus’ humanity. Although Jesus was the Son of Man (human) and the son of God (divine) during his life on earth, Jesus’ physical body was given as a ransom for human sin at the crucifixion. Witnesses believe that the resurrected Christ is all spirit, and in no way material. Members therefore deny the resurrection of the body for Christ, and for the faithful. For them, the risen Christ is a manifestation of the one universal God. There is only one God, to whom they refer by the Old Testament name of J – W, or Jehovah in their translation of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is but another manifestation of this universal God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to use a literal interpretation of Scripture that is understood to contain the messianic promise of Christ’s return to earth to establish Jehovah’s kingdom. According to this interpretation, Christ’s kingdom on earth will culminate with the war of nations and the rapture of the saints. When the nations descend into Armageddon, Christ will return to heaven with the 144,000 “anointed” described in the Book of Revelation. Some additional faithful, “the great crowd,” will also be saved. The holy will be sorted from the unholy, who will perished completely. The Witnesses do not believe in hell, or any period of torment after death that might be purificatory. In November, 1995, the monthly issue of The Watchtower adjusted apocalyptic expectations by redefining the “last generation” more inclusively so that it no longer refers simply to those who were alive in 1914 and expected to see the apocalypse in their lifetimes (Beckford 1975; Penton 1985).

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they are restoration of original Christian practice and beliefs as described in the New Testament, and, therefore, that their foundation lies in the Bible, and not in human imagination. Their beliefs are derived from, and based in, their distinctive interpretation of Scripture. Jehovah’s Witnesses have retranslated the Bible to conform to their view that the only God is Jehovah. Their translation substitutes the word Jehovah whenever the witnesses consider, even in the case of Jesus, that the text is discussing the one God. This translation, known as The New World Translation was first published in 1961. The New World Translation is available online; over 170 million copies have been distributed; and the book has been translated into more than 70 languages. The text was translated by Jehovah’s Witnesses from Greek and Aramaic. The translation has been applauded by scholars for its accuracy, although it is criticized as overly sectarian due to its inaccurate but consistent use of the word Jehovah to translate of Greek words for deity, Holy Spirit, Christ and Jesus.

The Bible Study Associations, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses continued to be guided by Russell’s distinctive millenarian eschatology and doctrine as set forth in his many tracts after his death. The earliest tracts were entitled Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, a monthly periodical that is still published today by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, now a semi-monthly publication, entitled The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom. Joseph Rutherford later established the Witness’ prohibitions on flag salute, military service, and participation in the politics of this world.(Penton 2004). Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that abortion is the termination of a life and therefore they oppose abortion, although not through political action. They believe that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the celebration of personal holidays, civic holidays and traditional religious holidays like Christmas or Easter. They regard such celebrations as contrary to the word of Scripture and a needless distraction for those elect who are preparing for God’s impending judgment. There is, however, one exception to this general practice; once a year Jehovah’s Witnesses commemorate Christ’s Last Evening Meal with his disciples. This ritual is known as the Lord’s Evening Meal, or more commonly the Memorial of Christ’s death. The date for this memorial ritual is determined according to the Jewish calendar, as Nissan 14. On that day, Jehovah’s Witnesses gather at their Kingdom Halls to offer, by passing among those gathered, bread and wine as referenced in the gospel of Matthew. Those who believe themselves to be “with heavenly hope” are instructed to drink the wine and eat the bread. Very few partake of the bread and wine, since those with heavenly hope were explicitly defined as the 144,000 “anointed” who were alive in 1914.

Jehovah’s Witnesses gather in their Kingdom Halls once a week to read and receive instruction, and to gather in community. Preaching is instructive
and is not considered to be sacred ritual; visitors to the weekly services might be surprised to find that the sermon is followed by clapping. At the weekly meetings the audience typically is well-dressed, ethnically and racially mixed. Meetings emphasize affirming and creating the bonds of community, with hugging, handshaking, and informal conversation. Jehovah’s Witnesses practice public baptism in order to symbolize official membership into the sect. Baptisms are performed at the Kingdom Hall, and after baptism the believer is considered to be an official member of the church, a “baptized publisher.”

ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP

Charles Russell co-founded the Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881 and was named as its president; three years later the Society incorporated. In 1908, Russell moved the headquarters of the Watch Tower Society from Pittsburgh to its present location in Brooklyn, New York. The Governing Body and printing operations are located in Brooklyn. The corporate headquarters is located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and there is a secondary corporate office in New York State. In the schism following Russell’s death in 1916, the Society lost a substantial proportion of its membership. Rutherford renamed the Watch Tower Society and its remaining membership as Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931 (Holden 2002).

Since the presidency of Rutherford, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been organized hierarchically, with exclusively white men in leadership. Many of the leaders of the church have little formal education. The hierarchy is headed by a President, who oversees The Governing Body of seven. The president and the governing body are all deemed to be “anointed.” The governing body remains at the church’s Brooklyn headquarters. Below that, the church is organized regionally: with traveling overseers, congregations, committees and elders, and a hierarchy of publishers determined by the number of hours that they devote to spreading the word. The base of the pyramid is made up of the “publishers,” those who go door to door spreading the word, and distributing and selling materials. No Jehovah’s Witnesses receive any compensation for their preaching; only foreign missionaries may sometimes receive a meager subsistence stipend.

Officially, to be a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is to be at least a “publisher.” Those who merely attend the memorial or other services are not counted as members of the church. Publishers are ordained ministers, and they are expected, though not required, to preach. They must report their activity to an Elder twice a month, and if there door-to-door ministry is less than one hour a week, they may be deemed “inactive.” Unbaptized children may preach if they are approved, but they are not otherwise counted as members of the church. Members of the church may divorce even though the sect emphasizes family within a patriarchal family structure. Jehovah’s Witnesses practice the “shunning” of former members, which means that even family and friends within the sect will cut off all contact with a member who has left the sect.

There are over seven million Jehovah’s Witnesses in the world (Cragin and Lawson 2010; Iannacone and Stark 1995). The growth of the sect is fueled by effective proselytizing and conversion rather than internal growth. Jehovah’s Witnesses can be found on every continent. It is difficult to determine the exact size of the group, since the Witnesses themselves count only Baptized Publishers as members of the church. This number is far exceeded by the number of those who self identify as Jehovah’s Witnesses on census reports. Currently, the highest rate of growth for Jehovah’s Witnesses is in areas where the pangs of modernization are still felt, such as Latin America, Asia, and Africa. In countries like the United States, where Jehovah’s Witnesses originated, and in Europe, the population of Jehovah’s Witnesses grows at a more moderate pace.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

New and sectarian religious groups have routinely experienced considerable opposition (Miller and Flowers 1987; Richardson 2004). Jehovah’s witnesses have faced many challenges arising from their refusal to serve in the military, to participate in the political process, to pledge allegiance to any other than Jehovah, and their active proselytizing and literature sales campaigns (Penton 2004; Sprague 1946). In the United States, beginning in the 1940s, Jehovah’s Witnesses pursued an activist litigation strategy that won them, and other religious minorities, many free exercise protections. Supreme Court rulings in a number of cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses are landmarks of First Amendment jurisprudence (Henderson 2010).

Cantwell v. Conneticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), the Court incorporated the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution when it overturned the convictions of two Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been charged, under a local ordinance, with disturbing the peace for their door–to-door proselytizing.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the Court upheld the arrest of a Jehovah’s Witness on the grounds that his “fighting words,” were a Constitutional exception to First Amendment free speech protections.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the Court ruled that the First Amendment protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton 536 U.S. 150 (2002), the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require Jehovah’s Witnesses to obtain a special license from the city and the approval of the mayor in order to go door to door to perform their ministry.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses were represented in many of these cases by Hayden Covington, a Jehovah’s Witness who eventually became the head of their corporate legal department. Covington brought 44 Jehovah’s Witness cases before the Supreme Court, and won over 80% of them. Covington was also instrumental in obtaining pardons, on the grounds of freedom of conscience for the Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been convicted of draft dodging during World War II. Covington successfully represented the Muslim boxer, Muhammad Ali, in overturning his conviction for evading the draft.

Today, in the United States, Jehovah’s Witnesses are well protected in the free exercise of their religion by the Constitution, but the same problems they faced in the U.S. they face abroad. As the church has grown into an international body, their singular obedience to Jehovah and their character as a new religion have both provoked restrictions and challenges (Peters 2000).

In France, when Jehovah’s Witnesses were deemed a suspicious “sect,” crushing fines and taxes were retroactively levied against them by the French government and their status as an exempt religious organization was revoked. In 2011, the European Court of Human rights ruled that this was an egregious violation of their human rights.

In Eritrea and Rwanda, hundreds of Jehovah’s witnesses are regularly jailed for their refusal to bear arms or participate in politics.

In India, Jehovah’s Witnesses missionaries are routinely harassed and beaten by police.

In most CIS states, the church is outlawed, and adherents are subjected to harassment, destruction of their property, and numerous other abuses.

In South Korea, nearly 1,000 Jehovah’s witnesses are in jail for refusing to enlist in the military (Henderson 2010).

REFERENCES

Holden, Andrew. 2002. Jehovah’s Witnesses Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. New York: Routledge.

Barbour, Neil and Charles Taze Russell. 1877. Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World. Rochester, NY: Charles Taze Russell.

Beckford, James A. 1975. The Trumpet of Prophecy : A Sociological Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bowman, Robert M. 1995. Jehovah’s Witnesses. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Cragin, Ryan T, and Ronald Lawson. 2010. “The Secular Transition: The Worldwide Growth of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists.” Sociology of Religion 71:349-73.

Harrison, Barbara Grizzuti. 1978. Visions of Glory : A History and a Memory of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Henderson, Jennifer Jacobs. 2010. Defending the Good News: The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Plan to Expand the First Amendment. Spokane, WA: Marquette Books.

Iannaccone, Lawrence R, Daniel V. A. Olson, and Rodney Stark. 1995. “Religious Resources and Church Growth.” Social Forces 74:705-31.

Miller, Robert and Ronald Flowers. 1987. Toward Benevolent Neutrality: Church, State, and the Supreme Court. Waco, TX: Markham Press Fund.

Penton. M James. 2004. Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich : Sectarian Politics under Persecution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Penton, M. James. 1985. Apocalypse Delayed : The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985.

Peters, Shawn Francis. 2000. Judging Jehovah’s Witnesses : Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution. Lawrence, KN: University Press of Kansas.

Richardson, James, ed. 2004. Regulating Religion: Case Studies from Around the Globe. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum.

Sprague, Theodore W. 1946. “The ‘World’ Concept among Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Harvard Theological Review 39:109-40.

Stroup, Herbert Hewitt. 1945. The Jehovah’s Witnesses. New York: Columbia University Press.

Publication Date:
15 August 2012