Florence Houteff

FLORENCE HOUTEFF TIMELINE

1919 (May 7):  Florence Marcella Hermanson was born.

1935 (May 19):  The Hermanson family moved with Victor Houteff to Mount Carmel, near Waco, Texas.

1937 (January 1):  Florence and Victor Houteff married.

1955 (February 5):  Victor Houteff died and Florence became Vice-President of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists.

1955 (November 9):  Florence announced the start of the period leading to the establishment of the Davidian Kingdom.

1959 (April):  Florence announced that a “solemn assembly” would take place later that month and that the faithful were to gather by April 16 to prepare for the great events that were to occur.

1959 (April 22):  A date set for the resurrection of Victor Houteff and war in the Middle East. About a thousand Davidians gathered at New Mount Carmel for Passover to witness the event.

1960 (December):  Florence declared that the message of the Shepherd’s Rod, a publication started by Victor in 1929, was to go to all Protestant Christians and not be restricted to Seventh-day Adventists.

1962 (March 1):  Florence Houteff formally resigned as Vice-President of the General Association of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists.

2008 (September 14):  Florence Marcella Hermanson Eakin died. Her grave is located at Evergreen Cemetery in Vancouver, Washington.

BIOGRAPHY

Relatively little is known regarding the life of Florence Houteff (née Hermanson) other than that which can be gleaned from sources that have her husband, Victor Houteff (1885–1955), founder of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, as their principal subject. [Image at right] This presents a problem of perspective. Nevertheless, there are some biographical details that are helpful to report here. Florence was born in 1919, the daughter of Eric and Sopha Hermanson and sister to Thomas Oliver Hermanson. Members of the Hermanson family were among the very earliest converts to the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, a group from which the later Branch Davidians were to emerge. According to a census return dated 1940, Sopha, Thomas Oliver and Florence Hermanson/Houteff were already residing at the Mount Carmel Center in Waco, Texas in 1935, with their earlier place of residence listed as Los Angeles. These details are in full accord with the wider reconstructed narrative of the beginnings of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists given in secondary sources. Newport, for example, provides evidence that Florence was among the very first group of Davidians to move from California to Texas, a trip that commenced on May 19, 1935 (Newport 2006a:57). Florence’s actual place of birth is listed as Wisconsin. This same census record lists Florence as being the wife of Victor, which makes the reported date of January 1, 1937 entirely plausible (Newport 2006a:58).

Florence Houteff is mentioned several times in what is undoubtedly one of the most important sources for the study of early Davidians, the memoirs of George Saether located at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and a good insight into the life, thought, and times of Florence can be gained from a study of that material (Saether 1977). As first a Hermanson and then a Houteff, Florence assumed a central role during a period of around twenty years, that is, from her arrival at Mount Carmel to the death of Victor in 1955.

It was upon her husband’s death, however, that Florence Houteff really came to the fore when she became the leader of movement. Her ascendency in 1955 was not uncontested however; there were at least three other contenders, including the later founder of the Branch Davidians, Ben Roden (1902–1978) (Newport 2006a:96). Florence occupied the leadership position until her resignation in March 1962. That resignation, which was not Florence’s alone but that of the entire executive council, marked the breakup of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists into several splinter groups, one of which was to become the Branch Davidians (see further Newport 2006b). Little is known of Florence following this key event. However, it is clear that at some point she married Carl Levi Eakin (1910–1998), whose grave, like that of Florence Marcella Hermanson Eakin, is located at Evergreen Memorial Gardens in Vancouver, Washington. [Image at right] The date of Florence’s death is given as September 14, 2008.

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES

As a core member of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, and indeed the wife of the movement’s founder and president, Florence’s conceptual and theological framework would have encompassed the broader, and complex, understanding of the world that marked out the Davidian movement as a whole. This ground has already been covered elsewhere in some considerable detail (Newport 2006a; Adair 1997 ). By far the most distinctive aspect of Florence’s thought came in response to the crisis within the movement that came about as a result of Victor Houteff’s death in 1955. The innovation was the now widely known prediction of Florence that Victor was to be raised from the dead, not at some indefinite point in the future but, rather, on April 22, 1959. As always there was concern to show that this expectation and date were rooted in the scriptures, and while the precise details of the interpretative process that was put in place to demonstrate the veracity of the claim are obscure, it seems fairly certain that the period of forty-two months or 1,260 days mentioned in the book of Revelation (11:3; 12:6; 13:5) was the bedrock (Newport 2006a:97–100).

Florence claimed that this period was very much on Victor Houteff’s mind during his last few days and that he had confirmed that the fulfilment of the prophecy was yet to occur, at least in what he called antitype. This use of type/antitype relates to a rather complex approach to prophetic interpretation of biblical texts, which was key to the Davidian movement, and, indeed, to the Seventh-day Adventist tradition as a whole. When this period was thought to have started is unclear, but it cannot have been on the day of Victor’s death, which would have yielded the date of July 19, 1958 for the fulfilment of the passing of 1,260 days. April 22, 1959 is itself important as it was Passover in that year, and the Jewish festivals had long been an important part of Davidian belief and practice. If the culmination of the period was to fall on that date, the prophetic stopwatch should have been started on November 9, 1955 (Victor had died in March of that year). In fact, it was on November 9 that Florence announced in the Davidian publication The Symbolic Code : “We’ve now entered these [1,260] days.” There is evidence to suggest that Florence had delayed the announcement until then so as to have the completion of the period fall during the Passover season (Newport 2006a:99). The end of this period would see the fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel 2:15, which speaks of a “solemn assembly” that is to take place. Florence set this out in The Symbolic Code of April 1959. Davidians were to gather by April 16 for preliminary meetings and then to attend the solemn assembly in order to prepare themselves for the major events that were then to take place (Adair 1997:206–07).

The expectation of the resurrection of Victor Houteff was part of a much wider set of beliefs concerning the events that would occur at the appointed time. Helpfully these were set out in a press release some time shortly before April 22. Specific mention of Houteff’s resurrection is noticeable by its absence, though other sources make it reasonably certain that the Davidians were expecting such a resurrection to take place. What is outlined is fairly standard Davidian belief: there would be war in the Middle East that would render the land of Israel largely empty of inhabitants. Concurrent with this, the Seventh-day Adventist Church would be cleansed (this involved a literal slaughter of those who had not been true to their professed faith it seems), and any that remain, including the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, would be called by God to inhabit the land of Israel and set up the new Davidian Kingdom, that is, the new literal latter-day Kingdom of David. In fact, nothing much happened.

Failed prophecies punctuate the history of many such groups, of course. However, it is worthy of note that following the non-event of April 22, 1959, Florence eventually took a step that few others in her position have ever taken: she admitted that she had been wrong. The re-evalution of the prophecy was not instantaneous, but it eventually did come. The key date here is March 1, 1962 when Florence submitted her resignation as Vice-President of the General Association of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. And it was not just Florence who resigned but rather the whole of the executive council. The details of the letter of resignation are particularly illuminating: there is a candid expression of fundamental doubt in the teachings of the movement and even of the much earlier prophetess of Seventh-day Adventism, Ellen Gould Harmon White (Newport 2006a:108-10). Florence’s days as a member of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists were over. She then largely disappeared from view and little is known about her activities over the next four decades leading up to her death in 2008.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

The wider Seventh-day Adventist movement from which the Davidians arose retained two aspects of Judaism that are largely absent from the rest of the Christian tradition. These are the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, which is kept as a day of rest and not just the day upon which church is attended; and the abstaining from unclean meats. From the outset Victor Houteff established even stronger continuity between the beliefs and practices found in the Hebrew scriptures and those of the New Testament. The type/antitype framework was key to this continuity. Such a framework suggests something of a chiastic structure to the progress of God’s people whereby what was true at the beginning (the type) will be true at the end (the antitype). This framework was core to the Davidian tradition. Indeed, Houteff went so far as to say, “where there is no type there is no truth” (Newport 2006a:77). The most obvious example here is that just as there was a literal King David in “type” and that king ruled over a literal kingdom in Israel, so in antitype there will be a literal King David who again will rule over a kingdom in Israel. This belief supplies the name of this movement: the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. Consequently, practices such as the paying of the second tithe, restrictions regarding diet, observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and other examples of the Davidians’ constant attempt to live out what many others in the Christian tradition take to be part of the “Old” Testament that was done away with in the New Testament form a regular part of the narrative that describes day-to-day life at the Davidians’ Mount Carmel Center under Florence Houteff.

It was aspects of this type/antitype framework that provided the group, including Florence, with a number of rituals and practices, the most obvious of which was the attempt to gather together the inhabitants of the new Endtime Davidian kingdom, an activity which dominated much of Davidian collective life. Again, Saether’s memoirs are well worth a careful read in this context. An additional very good insight is provided by Mary Power in a Master’s thesis submitted to Baylor University in 1940. The date of Power’s thesis and the work that it contains is obviously important in the context of seeking to understand the form, content, and nature of the beliefs and practices among the early Davidians, including Florence Houteff. What is particularly helpful is that Power’s work is based upon a number of visits she made to the community together with discussions that took place between Power and some members of the early Davidian community and a doctor, not a Davidian, who had a good first-hand knowledge of the Davidian group. Among the practices upon which Power reports are the precise nature of Sabbath observance, which included some preparatory fasting in order to clear the mind for focused Bible study. She also reports how group members were strict vegetarians, but not vegans, and always prepared food in the simplest possible manner. There was a dress code in place and women all had long hair as this was God’s will. The community developed its own system of currency. Dancing, “common literature,” attending the theater, using tobacco, wearing gold, or dressing in expensive clothing were all banned. Even married women wore no ring. Power also had a useful chapter on marriage and the family. One cannot say to what extent Florence was responsible for the development of such practices as those outlined by Power, but that she was one of the original members of the community and was compliant with them seems relatively certain.

LEADERSHIP

Florence Houteff seems to have played an important role within the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist tradition almost from its outset. As such her name appears on a range of primary documents coming from this period of the group’s history, copies of most of which are held at Baylor University, Waco, Texas. She is, for example, named as an appointed trustee of the General Association of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists in a document dated August 15, 1949.

As noted above, Florence took on the key leadership position within the group following the death of her husband. It was her
claim that on his deathbed Victor had specifically named her as the chosen successor, a claim that was reinforced by Florence’s brother Thomas Oliver Hermanson. There appear to have been no further witnesses to Victor’s words on this matter, and unsurprisingly it was challenged by some others within the movement, particularly by those who harbored ambition for the highest office themselves. In the end, however, since no one else was able to produce evidence either that Florence had not been so designated or that another claimant had a better case, Florence was appointed to the Vice-Presidency of the group. Victor Houteff’s actual post of President was not again filled as it was one to which only God could appoint.

Florence Houteff set about seeking to stabilize the group and there can be no doubt that the focus of the 1,260-day prophecy achieved this to some measure. By November 1955 the group had a very clear sense of destiny, and the clear and precise expectation regarding the importance of the date April 22, 1959. Even if the precise events of that day were not at first outlined in detail, they nevertheless provided a rallying call and sense of urgency. The task of calling the faithful to gather in preparation for the move to Israel had been central to Davidianism from its inception, but in the year or two before Victor’s death it had taken on very specific focus. Indeed, it was in order to support the work of unprecedented evangelism that the process of selling the original Mount Carmel property in Waco and moving to a much less favorable, and therefore less expensive, site close to Elk, Texas, some twelve miles out of Waco began. The sale was underway prior to Florence taking up the leadership (Adair 1997:175–77), and it was this “New Mount Carmel,” as it became known, that was the site of the Branch Davidians’ conflict with federal agents and resulting fire in 1993; though by then it had itself been reduced through sales to less than 10 percent of its original size.

Florence Houteff’s renewed emphasis on calling out of the Seventh-day Adventist Church all who would listen and encouraging them to gather at New Mount Carmel for April 22, 1959 evidently met with some considerable success. Various first-hand reports of the events surrounding the expected date give a sense of the excitement and scale of the gathering, with estimates reaching a thousand or more persons turning up to witness the resurrection of Victor Houteff and the coming about of the latter-day Davidian Kingdom. In the aftermath of the non-events of that date, Florence rather unwisely sought to widen the call to belief to any who would listen rather than limiting the call to existing members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church alone. The message was communicated to the community in a publication of The Symbolic Code during December 1960 (Adair 1997:222). This widening of the potential pool of recruits was probably a mistake in that it had the effect of introducing into the theological equation a previously unknown factor and, in reality, flew in the face of what Victor himself had always proclaimed, namely that the Davidian message was for Seventh-day Adventists only. Such a significant departure from the teachings of the founder whose life and message was still very much a live memory in the minds of many of the Davidians was a significant gamble (Adair 1997:222–23).

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Ultimately Florence Houteff’s leadership of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists ended in failure. It was, however, perhaps an inevitable one. The unexpected death of Victor Houteff was the event that opened up the path to leadership, but with that opportunity there came the need to address both theological and practical challenges, and on neither count was Florence really able to deliver. The setting of the April 22, 1959 date bought her some time, but it was not a permanent solution. The story of what eventually came about during the troubled years of 1959–1962 has been told before (Adair 1997), and need not be repeated here in any detail. In essence, following the resignation of Florence and the whole Davidian executive council, the movement was wound up and its assets put into the hands of a receiver. Following a decade of legal wrangling, the New Mount Carmel property near Elk, Texas passed into the hands of Ben Roden, founder of the Branch Davidians, but this is only one part of the fragmentation. Even before the resignations of 1962, one sizeable group (about 100) had moved back to Riverside, California, where the substantial Seventh-day Adventist presence provided an opportunity for evangelism. The Riverside Davidian group was soon to split further and then, in 1978, to split again. Similarly, by 1961 Ben Roden had already had some success in establishing the “Branch” trajectory, based in Waco though not on the New Mount Carmel site to begin with. It is of course tempting to see the Branch Davidian group as the successors of the Houteffs, but geographical continuity masks major theological divergence. Another Davidian group existing still to this day in Waco, though returning there only after periods in Jamaica and New York, has a better claim to continuity with the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists of Victor and Florence Houteff. Remarkably, it has managed to gain ownership of some property located on the site of the original Mount Carmel, which Houteff’s early community had occupied in 1935. From 1962, however, Florence Houteff was to play no further part in the Davidian story.

IMAGES
Image #1: Photograph of Florence Houteff with Victor (date unknown).
Image #2: Photograph of Florence Marcella Hermanson Eakin’s grave.
Image #3: Photograph of Florence Houteff.

REFERENCES

Adair, Don. 1997. A Davidian Testimony. Privately published.

Hibbert, A. Anthony. 2000. Before the Flames: Story of David Koresh and the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. New York: Seaburn Publishing.

Newport, Kenneth G. C. 2006a. The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History and Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Newport, Kenneth G. C. 2006b. “The Davidian Seventh-day Adventists and Millennial Expectation, 1959–2004.” Pp. 131-46 in Expecting the End: Millennialism in Social and Historical Context, edited by Kenneth G. C. Newport and Crawford Gribben. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Pitts, William. 1995. “Davidians and Branch Davidians: 1929-1987.” Pp. 20-42 in Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict, edited by Stuart A. Wright. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Saether, George William. 1977. “Oral Memoirs of George William Saether, July 12, 1973–June 30, 1975.” Religion and Culture Project. Baylor University Program for Oral History. Accessed from http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/buioh/id/1214 on 10 April 2017.

Power, Mary Elizabeth. 1940. “A Study of the Seventh-day Adventist Community, Mount Carmel Center, Waco, Texas.” M.A. Thesis, Baylor University.

Post Date:
15 April 2017

 

Share

Marie-Paule Giguère

MARIE-PAULE GIGUÈRE TIMELINE

1921 (September 14):  Marie-Paule Giguère was born in Sainte-Germaine du Lac-Etchemin, Québec, Canada.

1944 (July 1):  Giguère married Georges Cliche.

1954:  Giguère heard supernatural voices telling her that she would lead a Catholic movement.

1957 (September):  Giguère separated from her husband.

1971 (August 28):  The Army of Mary was founded by Giguère.

1972:  Father Philippe Roy joined the Army of Mary.

1975 (March 10):  Cardinal Maurice Roy of Québec approved the Army of Mary as a legitimate Roman Catholic association.

1978:  The French writer Raoul Auclair moved to Québec to work full time for the Army of Mary.

1978:  Giguère started the publication of Vie d’Amour.

1981:  Giguère established the Community of the Sons and Daughters of Mary.

1984:  The Archbishop of Québec, Cardinal Louis-Albert Vachon, formed a commission to investigate the Army of Mary.

1986:  Giguère founded the Oblates-Patriots.

1987 (February 27):  The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith judged two books by Army of Mary’s lay leader Marc Bosquart as “seriously erroneous.”

1987 (May 4):  Cardinal Louis-Albert Vachon of Québec declared that the Army of Mary was no longer a Catholic organization.

1997:  Giguère joined the Daughters of Mary and was elected as their Superior General.

2000 (March 31):  A note by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith found theological errors in Vie d’Amour.

2001 (June 29):  A formal censure of the Army of Mary occurred, stating that its doctrines were not Catholic, by the Canadian Catholic Bishops Conference.

2006:  Under the authority of Giguère’s visions, and of a new “Church of John,” Father Pierre Mastropietro, a Son of Mary, ordained new deacons and priests, although he was not himself a bishop.

2007 (July 11):  The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith excommunicated those accepting and propagating the doctrines and practices of the Army of Mary.

2009 (May 31):  Although still alive, Giguère was canonized as a saint by her Church of John.

2015 (April 25):  Giguère died in Lac-Etchemin.

BIOGRAPHY

Marie-Paule Giguère was born on September 14, 1921 at Sainte-Germaine-du-Lac-Etchemin, a small rural town sixty miles from Québec City, Québec. Later, Lac-Etchemin (where a small Marian shrine was built in the 1950s) would acquire a peculiar significance in Giguère’s millennial worldview. A pious young girl, Marie-Paule considered religious life as a missionary in Africa, but her poor health was interpreted by her spiritual advisors as a sign that the Lord was calling her to marriage. In 1944, she married Georges Cliche (1917–1997), with whom she had five children between 1945 and 1952. [Image at right] But the marriage proved a nightmare, with Georges revealing himself to be prodigal, alcoholic, and adulterous. The Church, while opposed to divorce, accepted separation in extreme cases, and several priests suggested that Marie-Paule leave her husband. She did so, reluctantly, in 1957, and later attempts at reconciliation proved unsuccessful, although as an old man Georges would eventually join Marie-Paule’s movement.

Ever since her teenage years, Marie-Paule had heard the interior voices of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. These messages guided her through the trials of her life and eventually directed her to write a lengthy autobiography, Vie d’Amour (A Life of Love), of which thirteen volumes were published from 1979–1980. Five volumes of Appendices were added between 1992 and 1993 (Giguère 1992–1993). Volumes 4 and 6 (about some of Marie-Paule’s early companions) followed in 1993 and 1994, bringing the total to more than 6,000 pages (Giguère 1979–1994).

Marie-Paule became active in the Catholic Marian movement known as the Legion of Mary and worked for Catholic magazines and radio stations. In 1954, she supernaturally heard for the first time a reference to “the Army of Mary,” a “wonderful movement” she would later lead (Giguère 1979–1994, 1:174). [Image at right] Slowly, a small Marian group was formed, which included a couple of priests. On August 28, 1971, during a pilgrimage to the Lac-Etchemin shrine, Marie-Paule officially inaugurated the Army of Mary. A priest from the Catholic diocese of Rimouski (Québec), Father Philippe Roy (1916–1988), joined the movement in 1972, and eventually became its general director. Following a request by Bishop Jean-Pierre van Lierde (1907–1995), Vicar General of Vatican City and a supporter of Giguère, recognition of the Army of Mary as a “pious association” was obtained in 1975 from Cardinal Maurice Roy (1905–1985), Archbishop of Québec City (not a relative of Father Philippe Roy). In the meantime, the Army of Mary had met with considerable success, due largely to the charismatic personality of Marie-Paule herself. The Army of Mary also reflected the needs of a sizeable section of Québec’s Catholics. They were confused by post-Vatican II reforms in the Church and disoriented by Québec’s “silent revolution” that was transforming its Catholic, agrarian society to a more secular, urban one. Yet, a large majority still maintained loyalty to Rome and were unwilling to join schismatic groups. Marie-Paule’s popularity also guaranteed a steady flow of contributions, enabling her in 1983 to buy land in her native Lac-Etchemin where the Army of Mary’s headquarters would be eventually built.

From 1971, Marie-Paule had been in touch with a popular French author of texts on prophecy, Raoul Auclair (1906–1997). In 1978, he moved from France to Québec, where he became the editor of the movement’s magazine, L’Étoile (later replaced by Le Royaume). In the years that followed, the Army of Mary gathered thousands of followers in Canada and hundreds more in Europe. The Community of the Sons and Daughters of Mary, a religious order including both priests and nuns, was established in 1981, with Pope John Paul II (1920–2005) personally ordaining the first Son of Mary as a priest in 1986. Several other ordinations followed, and a number of Catholic dioceses throughout the world were happy to welcome both the Sons and the Daughters of Mary to help them in their pastoral work. After her husband’s death in 1997, Marie-Paule herself became a Daughter of Mary, and was subsequently elected Superior General of the congregation as Mère Marie-Paule, later Mère Paul-Marie. [Image at right] A larger “Family of the Sons and Daughters of Mary” also included auxiliary organizations, such as the Oblates-Patriots, established by Marie-Paule in 1986 with the aim of spreading conservative Catholic social teachings, and the Marialys Institute, created in 1992, which gathered together Catholic priests who were not members of the Sons of Mary but shared their general aims.

The Army of Mary’s success was always accompanied by conflicts with members of the Catholic hierarchy. What created substantial controversy were the firm roots of the Army of Mary in a Catholic millennialist tradition at a time when the Québec Catholic hierarchy had little patience with it. A campaign against Marie-Paule gathered momentum in Québec from at least the early 1980s, and in 1984 the Archbishop of Québec City, Louis-Albert Vachon (1912–2006), appointed a commission to investigate the Army of Mary. Vachon would become a cardinal in 1985.

The commission focused on certain writings by Raoul Auclair, according to which the “Immaculate” existed as a spiritual being since before the creation, later to descend into the Virgin Mary; and on other writings by a Belgian member, Marc Bosquart (b. 1955), who had moved to Québec and had written two books claiming that the Immaculate was now mystically inhabiting Marie-Paule (Bosquart 1985, 1986). Although the Army of Mary maintained that these were Bosquart’s personal opinions, rather than teachings of the movement itself, Vachon’s commission regarded the organization as potentially heretical. The case went to Rome, and in 1987 the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith judged Bosquart’s opinions as “seriously erroneous,” opening the way for a declaration by Cardinal Vachon that the Army of Mary was no longer recognized as a Catholic organization. Appeals to the Vatican protesting Vachon’s decision failed. Although the Army of Mary at that time withdrew Bosquart’s books from circulation, the controversy with Catholic bishops in Québec continued, while some English-speaking Canadian bishops, and certain bishops in Italy, were still prepared to accept both the Sons and Daughters of Mary and the Army of Mary itself into their dioceses. Finally, on March 31, 2000, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith sent a note to all Canadian bishops stating that Marie-Paule’s Vie d’Amour contained doctrinal errors, and that further action needed to be taken. On June 29, 2001, the Canadian Conference of Canadian Bishops published a statement saying that the Army of Mary should no longer be regarded as a Roman Catholic organization.

Perhaps because an agreement with Rome now seemed more difficult, Marie-Paule authorized the publication in 2001 and 2002 of new writings by Marc Bosquart, again proposing doctrines similar to those criticized by the Vatican in 1987 (Bosquart 2001a, 2001b, 2002). This was one of the factors leading to further censures of the Army of Mary by the new Archbishop of Québec, Cardinal Marc Ouellet (b. 1944), in 2005 and 2007.

In 2006, fresh revelations to Marie-Paule led to a complete rupture with the Vatican. These visions distinguished between a Church of Peter and a mystical and esoteric Church of John. Marie-Paule claimed that the Pope in Rome was still leading the “Church of Peter,” but appointed one of the priests in the Sons of Mary, Pierre Mastropietro (whose French-Italian name, translated “Peter Master-Peter,” was regarded as a prophetic omen), as Universal Father of the higher Church of John. In this role, Mastropietro proceeded to ordain first deacons and then priests, to canonize new saints, including Raoul Auclair, and even to proclaim new dogmas, moving from the Christian Trinity to a Quinternity, which added the Virgin Mary and Marie-Paule herself to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On May 31, 2009 Marie-Paule was canonized in the Church of John; this occurred before her death, something theologically and canonically impossible in the Roman Catholic Church. On July 11, 2007, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith excommunicated those advocating and propagating the doctrines of the Army of Mary.

In the last years of her life, Marie-Paule was seriously ill and not able to participate in the daily life of the movement, now led by Marc Bosquart as Universal King and by Father Mastropietro as Holy Father of the Church of John. She died in Lac-Etchemin on April 25, 2015. [Image at right]

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES 

To understand Marie-Paule’s mystical teachings, it is necessary to start with the Marian apparitions of Amsterdam, Holland, in 1945–1959, whose existence Marie-Paule discovered through Raoul Auclair in 1971. Ida Peerdeman (1905–1996), born in Alkmaar, The Netherlands, reported an encounter with the Virgin Mary at the age of twelve, followed by miraculous visions of battles in Europe during World War II. From 1945 to 1959, she received fifty-five messages from the Virgin Mary. Although the first verdict of the local Catholic diocese was negative, a chapel was quietly built in the 1970s at the site of the Amsterdam apparition and dedicated to the “Lady of All Peoples.” Peerdeman’s prayer to the “Lady of All Peoples, who was once Mary,” and the messages she received gained widespread popularity throughout much of the Catholic world. They were interpreted as predicting three different events: a crisis in the Church, Vatican II (seen as a rather positive development and as an antidote to the crisis), and a future millennial Kingdom of the Holy Spirit and Mary.

To usher in that Kingdom, Peerdeman called upon the Church to proclaim officially a new Marian dogma emphasizing Mary’s role as “Co-Redeemer.” The title had a long tradition in Catholic Marian theology but was never officially approved by the Vatican. On May 31, 1996, less than three months before Peerdeman’s death, Bishop Henrik Bomers (1936–1998) of the Dutch diocese of Haarlem published a notification approving “the prayer and the public cult of Mary under the title of Lady of All Peoples,” while stating that “the Church cannot, for the moment, make a pronouncement on the supernatural character of the apparitions.” The bishop’s notification downplayed the millennial element of Peerdeman’s experience, emphasizing instead that the title Lady of All Peoples cast a “clear light on the universal motherhood of Mary” and on her “unique and feminine role in the Lord’s plan of salvation” (Bomers and Punt 1996).

In 2002, Bomers’ successor as bishop of Haarlem, Jozef Marianus Punt (b. 1946), finally recognized “that the apparitions of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam consist of a supernatural origin.” Although Marian apparitions are recognized by local bishops rather than the Vatican, bishops are nonetheless supervised by the Vatican in this activity. Punt acknowledged that “naturally, the influence of the human element still exists” (Punt 2002), as in all apparitions, quoting on this point Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), at that time Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and later to become Pope Benedict XVI. This was a reference to the words “who was once Mary” included in the prayer revealed in the apparitions and referred to the Lady of All Peoples; this language became an object of concern precisely because of its interpretation by Marie-Paule and was finally dropped in the version of the prayer used in Amsterdam.

Raoul Auclair was the link between the world of European apparitions and Marie-Paule in Québec. He regarded as a prophetic sign the fact that he received his First Communion on May 13, 1917, the day of the first apparition at Fátima, Portugal. A promising student, he abandoned his academic career to complete his military service in Morocco, and then worked as a surgical materials salesman before finding more satisfactory employment in 1941 with French national radio. In the same year, he had a mystical experience in Marseilles, and was “transported outside time, as if plummeted into the Divine Intelligence” (Péloquin 1997:10–11). Besides working as a playwright for the radio, he became an increasingly successful author of books on Catholic prophecy and eschatology as well as Marian apparitions. By the 1960s he had at his disposal a rich collection of materials on all sorts of supernatural phenomena (Auclair 1981).

American scholar Sandra Zimdars-Swartz noted the importance of Auclair as a representative of a Catholic millennialism, which, unlike other forms, eventually placed the “Second Vatican Council in a positive light.” In fact, Auclair tried to walk a middle course in the struggle over Vatican II reforms. He saw the Roman Catholic Church as being menaced both by those who were frenetic for reform, who he described as motivated by a “bad spirit,” and by the overly narrow traditionalists who were unwilling to allow the Holy Spirit to change the structures of the Church (Zimdars-Swartz 1991:256–57).

Eventually, Auclair became the main apologist for Ida Peerdeman’s vision and was instrumental in organizing three meetings of the Amsterdam visionary with Marie-Paule. After the death of his wife in 1976, as mentioned above, he moved permanently to Québec in 1978, taking the habit of the related religious order, the Sons of Mary, in 1987. Originally, “fidelity to Rome and the Pope” was a key teaching and the motto of the Army of Mary; and Marie-Paule’s followers, the Knights of Mary, centered their religious life on the Triple White: the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, and the Pope. Marie-Paule also proposed a traditional Marian devotion along the lines of Auclair and Peerdeman. But when the Army of Mary became controversial the advisory circle around Peerdeman advised the Dutch visionary to keep her distance from the organization.

In the 1980s, both Marie-Paule and her main advisors started proposing doctrines increasingly at odds with Roman Catholic orthodoxy. According to Auclair (1985), a mysterious being known as CELLE (SHE, in all capitals) existed before entering the person of the Virgin Mary, and still exists, having “once been Mary,” according to Auclair’s interpretation of the Amsterdam prayer (an interpretation not reflected in the literature officially approved by the Amsterdam shrine). It was not an inconceivable step for Auclair’s friends in the Army of Mary to conclude that, as she had already inhabited Mary once before, CELLE now mystically inhabited Marie-Paule, who was elevated to a sort of new incarnation of the Virgin Mary. Marc Bosquart’s books presented this conclusion, based also on the word “reincarnation” mysteriously mentioned in Vie d’Amour (Bosquart 1985; see Introvigne 2001).

It is unclear how much in the subsequent developments (the distinction between the Church of Peter and the Church of John and the divine role of Marie-Paule herself as part of the newly recognized Quinternity) was promoted by Marie-Paule and based on her visions, as opposed to being the fruit of the religious creativity of Marc Bosquart. In the last years of her life, Marie-Paule was increasingly frail and largely limited her activities to approving Bosquart’s decisions. Regardless of the source, these new doctrines completed the transformation of the Army of Mary from a conservative Catholic group to a full-fledged new religious movement.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Until the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rituals and practices promoted by Marie-Paule were those of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Mass and the sacraments administered by priests in communion with the Vatican, and the traditional Catholic pious practices, including the Rosary. In addition, there were colorful ceremonies honoring the Army of Mary and Marie-Paule, but these remained within the framework of a Catholic movement’s activities.

It was only with the proclamation of the Church of John that new ceremonies were introduced, although during Marie-Paule’s lifetime the basic structure of the Catholic Mass was not altered. It was more a matter of new interpretations, such as the one suggesting that during the communion not only the body of Jesus Christ, but also the body of the Virgin Mary and the mystical body of Marie-Paule were offered to the faithful. Similarly, devotional objects with the number five and references to the Quinternity were introduced, but they accompanied familiar Catholic tools such as rosaries. Only after Marie-Paule’s death in 2015, did Marc Bosquart and others suggest that the Church of John, as a new church, should also have a new liturgy, and a deeper reformation was started.

LEADERSHIP

Marie-Paule was a strong and charismatic leader, despite recurring issues with her health. She was, however, a woman in a church where priesthood was reserved to men; moreover, she was a layperson with a limited theological education. She always had to rely on duly ordained priests for the sacramental life and on theologians for advice. She believed, however, that laymen who had read more theological books than she did, but were not technically theologians, would be able to lead the movement with her, and might be able to understand her visions better than professional theologians. She relied on Raoul Auclair, and much more, in a later period, on Marc Bosquart, who became the authorized interpreter of Vie d’Amour (see Bosquart 2006–2009). Her prophetic visions indicated Bosquart as destined to a leadership role in the movement and, as “king,” in the world at large.

Scholars and critics repeatedly asked the question whether Marie-Paule was the “real” leader of the Army of Mary, or if she was ultimately controlled by someone else. For her followers, she was undoubtedly controlled by God through her visions and the internal words she was able to hear, although in her later years it was suggested she might be part of the Godhead herself. Those outside the movement speculated that Bosquart and others might have tried to impose their own views on Marie-Paule, and that without their influence she might perhaps have submitted to the Roman Catholic Church. Having conducted several interviews with Marie-Paule between 1996 and 1998, I personally believe that she was a strong and intelligent woman, and that she never accepted from others theories she did not regard as supernaturally confirmed by her revelations and inner voices.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

The confrontation between Marie-Paule and the Catholic authorities has been described in the biographical section above. At stake was not only the mystical character of her revelations but a new theology, mostly created by Bosquart, which was gradually taking shape. The Belgian leader’s ideas were clearly unacceptable to the Roman Catholic bishops, as they in fact generated a new church, with a new hierarchy and new theology. Although Bosquart and Marie-Paule would have been happy to leave the leadership of the Church of Peter to the Pope in Rome, the Vatican could obviously not accept that in Québec there was an alternative Church of John, believed by its adherents to be superior to the church headquartered in Rome.

When all this became clear, Marie-Paule was faced with a new challenge. A certain number of priests, including some of the most active and well-educated, nuns and laypersons abandoned the Army of Mary/Church of John movement. They were prepared to challenge the Canadian bishops on Marie-Paule’s revelations, originally approved by Cardinal Roy, but joining a new church and adopting a new theology, and exchanging the Trinity for a newly revealed Quinternity, was a different matter altogether. Some of Marie-Paule’s longtime companions stayed, trusting her notwithstanding the Vatican excommunication in 2007 of persons accepting and propagating the movement’s doctrines and practices. Socializing younger generations into the radically alternative subculture of the Church of John, and attracting new members accepting of a rupture with the Roman Catholic Church was a difficult challenge for Marie-Paule in her last years of activity, and continues to be a problem for her successors.

IMAGES

Image #1: Marie-Paule and her children, 1966. Courtesy La Communauté de la Dame de Tous les Peuples.
Image #2: Marie-Paule, 1959. Courtesy La Communauté de la Dame de Tous les Peuples.
Image #3: Marie-Paule as Mother Paul-Marie. Courtesy La Communauté de la Dame de Tous les Peuples.
Image #4: Funeral of Marie-Paule, 2015. Courtesy La Communauté de la Dame de Tous les Peuples.

REFERENCES

Auclair, Raoul. 1985. L’Homme total dans la Terre totale. Limoilou, Québec: Éditions Stella.

Auclair, Raoul. 1981. Le Secret de La Salette. Limoilou, Québec: Éditions Stella.

Bomers, Henrik, and Jozef Marianus Punt. 1996. “Notification for the Catholic Faithful of the Diocese of Haarlem.” English translation. Haarlem, The Netherlands: Diocese of Haarlem.

Bosquart, Marc. 2006–2009. Trésors de “Vie d’Amour.” 5 Volumes. Lac-Etchemin, Québec: Les Éditions du Nouveau Monde.

Bosquart, Marc 2002. Marie-Paule et la Co-rédemption. Lac-Etchemin, Québec: Les Éditions du Nouveau Monde.

Bosquart, Marc. 2001a. Terre nouvelle, homme nouveau. Lac-Etchemin, Québec: Les Éditions du Nouveau Monde.

Bosquart, Marc 2001b. L’Immaculée, la divine Épouse de Dieu. Lac-Etchemin, Québec: Les Éditions du Nouveau Monde.

Bosquart, Marc. 1986. Le Rédempteur et la Co-Rédemptrice. Éléments pour servir à la Contemplation d’un mystère – II. Limoilou, Québec: La Famille des Fils et Filles de Marie.

Bosquart, Marc. 1985. De la Trinité Divine à l’Immaculée-Trinité. Éléments pour servir à la Contemplation d’un mystère – I. Limoilou, Québec: La Famille de Fils et Filles de Marie.

Giguère, Marie-Paule. 1992–1993. Vie d’Amour—Appendice. 5 Volumes. Limoilou, Québec: Marie-Paule Vie d’Amour.

Giguère, Marie-Paule. 1979–1994. Vie d’Amour. 15 Volumes. Limoilou, Québec: Vie d’Amour.

Introvigne, Massimo. 2001. “En Route to the Marian Kingdom: Catholic Apocalypticism and the Army of Mary.” Pp. 149-65 in Christian Millenarianism: From the Early Church to Waco, edited by Stephen Hunt. London: Hurst & Company.

Péloquin, Maurice. 1997. “La vie familiale de Raoul Auclair.” Le Royaume 115:10–11.

Punt, Jozef Marianus. 2002. “In Response to Inquiries Concerning the Lady of All Nations Apparitions.” Declaration of 31 May 2002. English translation accessed from http://www.cesnur.org/2002/punt.htm on 1 March 2017.

Zimdars-Swartz, Sandra L. 1991. Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Post Date:
20 March 2017

Share

Katherine Augusta (Westcott) Tingley

KATHERINE TINGLEY TIMELINE

1847 (July 6):  Katherine Tingley was born Catherine Augusta Westcott in Newbury, Massachusetts.

1850s:  As a child Tingley was greatly influenced by nature, New England Transcendentalism and the Masonic background of her grandfather Nathan Chase.

1861:  Tingley attended to those wounded in the Civil War while her family was in Virginia

1862–1865:  Horrified at her response to the suffering soldiers, Tingley’s father sent her to Villa Marie Convent in Montreal, Quebec, over objections from her grandfather.

1867:  Tingley briefly married Richard Henry Cook, a printer.

1866–1887:  There is little or no documentation for this period, but Tingley had two unsuccessful, childless marriages. During part of this time, she was in Europe working in a travelling stage/drama group.

1880:  Tingley married George W. Parent, an investigator for New York Elevated. The marriage ended by 1886.

1880s:  Tingley adopted and raised two children, from her former husband, Richard Henry Cook’s, second marriage.

1887:  Tingley formed the Ladies Society of Mercy to visit hospitals and prisons.

1888:  Tingley married Philo B. Tingley in the spring. Philo B. Tingley joined the Manhattan, New York City Masonic group that year, where William Q. Judge was the almoner.

1888–1889:  Katherine Tingley met William Q. Judge during a cloakmakers strike, somewhere between fall of 1888 and winter of 1889. Judge investigated her work for the Manhattan Masonic Lodge. The Lodge provided funding for some of Tingley’s Do Good Mission efforts.

1890 (April):  W. Q. Judge was ill with gradually progressing tuberculosis and Chagres fever. He sent Tingley to Sweden on secret mission to meet King Oscar II, arranged through Masonic connections.

1888–1891:  Tingley established various social work outreach projects, which included the Do Good Mission and the Women’s Emergency Relief Association, which arranged and provided a soup kitchen, clothing and medical needs in New York City for the Upper Eastside and for striking immigrant garment workers.

March 1896:  William Q. Judge died.

April 1896:  At the second annual convention of the Theosophical Society in America an announcement was made of the prospective founding by Tingley of the School for the Revival of the Lost Mysteries of Antiquity (SLRMA), generally referred to later as the School of Antiquity. Tingley was elected as head for life of Theosophical Society in America.

1896 (June 7):  A ten-month World Theosophical Crusade was inaugurated to visit Theosophical centers, form new branches, and hold Brotherhood Suppers for the poor.

1896 (June 13):  World Theosophical Crusade sailed from New York City, landed in England and then went to Ireland, Continental Europe, Greece (stopping to feed hundreds of Armenian refugees), then to Egypt (October), India (November/December), Australia (January 1897), New Zealand and Samoa. While on board the ship Tingley gave Theosophical talks for the steerage underclass passengers; while at various stops in Great Britain and Europe she held Brotherhood Suppers for the poor,

1896 (September):  While in Switzerland, Tingley received information that the Point Loma, California location, which appeared to her in a vision, was available. She met Gottfried de Purucker (who would become her successor) who drew a map of Point Loma. Tingley sent the cable to purchase the land at Point Loma.

1896 (October/November):  Tingley described her meeting with Helena P. Blavatsky’s young Tibetan “Teacher” in Darjeeling.

1897 (January):  Tingley purchased 132 acres on Point Loma in San Diego, with option to buy an additional forty acres.

1897 (February 13):  Tingley arrived at Point Loma.

1897 (February 23):  Tingley officially laid the cornerstone for the future School for the Revival of the Lost Mysteries of Antiquity. More than 1,000 people attended the ceremony.

1898:  Tingley formally changed the name of her group from The Theosophical Society to The Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society.

1898 (November 19):  Tingley produced a benefit performance in New York City of the Greek tragedy by Aeschylus, The Eumenides, for American soldiers and Spanish and Cuban sufferers in the Spanish American War. The New York Tribune reviewed the performance favorably.

1899 (February):  Tingley met with large group from all over Cuba upon her arrival in Santiago, Cuba. She encountered Emilio Bacardi Moreau, the mayor of Santiago, Cuba and grandmaster of Masonic lodges in Cuba.

1899 (April 13):  The first Universal Brotherhood Congress convened at Point Loma, with two performances of the Eumenides featuring a cast of two hundred.

1899 (September 13):  The second Universal Brotherhood Congress convened in Stockholm, Sweden, with a reception attended by King Oscar II. There was another large gathering in Brighton, England, on October 6.

1899–1900:  Extensive remodeling of the preexisting large sanatorium building into the Academy and Temple of Peace, along with extensive development of the Point Loma site, began.

1900:  Raja Yoga school founded at Point Loma with first five students at Point Loma, including Iverson Harris Jr. and four daughters of Walter T. Hanson from Georgia: Coralee, Margaret, Estelle, and Kate.

1900:  Tingley held a debate with Christians at the Fisher Opera House in San Diego. The Christians, who verbally attacked her and the Theosophists, declined to participate, and so Tingley presented both sides at the debate. She then purchased the Fisher Opera House and renamed it the Isis Theater after the Egyptian goddess.

1901:  Tingley built the first Greek-style theater in America at Point Loma.

1901:  Tingley produced a Greek symposium, The Wisdom of Hypatia, performed at the renamed Isis Theater. That same year saw dramatic productions of The Conquest of Death and a children’s drama Rainbow Fairy Play.

1901 (October 28):  The Los Angeles Times headlined a sensationalized column: “Outrages at Point Loma: Women and Children Starved and Treated like Convicts. Thrilling Rescue.” Tingley’s subsequent suit for libel against the publisher Otis Gray, one of the most powerful people in California at that time, was successful and she was awarded $7,500.

1902:  One hundred students were now enrolled at the Raja Yoga school. Two-thirds were Cuban, including children of Emilio Bacardi Moreau.

1903:  Twenty-five Raja Yoga students were sent to Cuba to help launch schools there. Three schools were established. Nan Ino Herbert was the principal.

1903:  Tingley journeyed to Japan with Gottfried de Purucker. She was impressed with Japanese discipline and ethic and invited Japanese educators to visit Point Loma.

1907:  A Midsummer Night’s Dream was produced at Point Loma and performed in the Greek Theater, featuring original music, costumes, and set. Dozens of plays, mostly from Shakespeare and Aeschylus were produced at Point Loma over the next thirty years.

1907:  Tingley had a private visit and meeting with King Oscar II of Sweden, who died a few weeks later. She purchased government land to establish a Raja Yoga school on Visingso Island in Sweden.

1909:  The Raja Yoga schools were closed in Cuba due to financial strain. Tingley had been diverting Point Loma funds there, which was not sustainable.

1909:  Kenneth Morris, Welsh poet and fantasist, moved to Point Loma.

1911:  The first issue of The Theosophical Path appeared, with Gottfried de Purucker as acting editor. This journal was issued monthly in the same format from 1911 until 1929.

1911:  Pageant and symposium, The Aroma of Athens, was written and performed by the Theosophists as a dramatic production at Isis Theater.

1911 (November):  After a very moving visit to San Quentin, Tingley began to publish The New Way, an eight-page newsletter directed at prisoners and edited by Herbert Coryn. The newsletter stated that it was published by “The International Theosophical League of Humanity for Gratuitous Distribution in Prisons.”

1913 (Midsummer):  1913 (Midsummer): Tingley organized, with Swedish members, and attended with a group of Raja Yoga students from Point Loma, the Theosophical Peace Congress at Visingso Island.

1913–1920s:  Tingley’s anti-war peace activities were pervasive from this time through the 1920s with many events and activities organized in San Diego and in Europe.

1914:  Tingley inaugurated the Peace Day of Nations. Telegrams peace and anti-war messages were sent to President Woodrow Wilson.

1914–1915:  Tingley lost part of an inheritance from A. B. Spaulding in a lawsuit brought by his heirs.

1915:  Tingley suggested to plein air impressionist artist Maurice Braun, who had come to join the Theosophists in 1909, that he establish his art focus in San Diego, rather than at Point Loma. Braun became one of the founders of the San Diego Art Guild, which later became the San Diego Art Institute.

1914–1917:  Tingley successfully campaigned against capital punishment in Arizona, supporting and collaborating with then-Governor George W. P. Hunt.

1917–1920:  Tingley headed anti-vivisection animal rights efforts.

1919 (January):  The Spanish Influenza, which raged throughout the nation, saw only a single case at Point Loma.

1920:  Through a large publicity campaign Tingley successfully influenced the California governor to commute the sentence of Roy Wolff, who was seventeen at the time he killed a taxi driver.

1920s:  At its height, Point Loma had residents from twenty-six nations.

1922:  Katherine Tingley’s talk on Theosophy: The Path of the Mystic was printed and published at Point Loma.

1923:  Adventure novelist Talbot Mundy took up residence at Point Loma, and there wrote his most mystical adventure story, Om the Secret of Ahbor Valley, in which the Lama protagonist is patterned after Tingley.

1923:  Tingley met Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Anthroposophical Society, in Germany and proposed that the two groups merge. Tingley’s stroke later that year and Steiner’s death precluded this potential merger.

1923:  Tingley lost a lawsuit that relatives brought in the Mohn family inheritance.

1925:  Katherine Tingley’s talk on The Wine of Life, which outlined the ideal of the Theosophical home life, was printed and published at Point Loma.

1926:  Katherine Tingley’s talk on The Gods Await was printed and published at Point Loma.

1927:  Katherine Tingley’s talk on The Travail of the Soul was printed and published at Point Loma.

1929:  Tingley had premonitions of her impending death, described by Elsie Savage Benjamin.

1929 (July 11):  Katherine Tingley died in Sweden while on a European tour, following an auto accident in Germany.

BIOGRAPHY

Katherine Augusta Westcott was born in Newbury, Massachusetts on 6 July 1847. She grew up in New England, her childhood spent wandering along the banks of the Merrimac River near Newbury. The first years through her mid-teens appear to have been idyllic. She found the companionship of her grandfather, Nathan Chase, to be inspiring. She observed that she was drawn to the outdoors and described a nature-loving, interior, and more spiritualized orientation from early childhood. She portrayed her childhood experience and wonderment with the natural world, writing that “in my love of Nature and in my love of the true and the beautiful, in my love of this Eternal Supreme Power, my views broadened and I felt there is still greater knowledge and more wonderful meaning to human life” (Tingley 1925:286). Additionally, she was also drawn to the visitors and friends of her family, who were participants in the New England Transcendentalist movement. She wrote that she tried many philosophies, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and though they stirred her, they “did not quite satisfy.”

The first major transition in her life came in 1861 during the American Civil War. Her father was a regiment captain, stationed with the Union Army in Virginia, and there she witnessed the suffering and wounded soldiers. After the second battle of Bull Run, she saw “the ambulances returning with the dead and dying, followed by the files of Confederate soldiers, ragged and half starving” (Tingley 1926:36–37). Unable to bear the sight, Tingley and her African American servant went out among the soldiers and tended their wounds late into the night. However, her father’s reaction to Katherine’s impulse to aid the suffering and wounded was not a positive one. Out of concern for Katherine’s well-being he quickly sent her off, over the protests of her grandfather, a member of the Masons, to a Catholic boarding school administered by nuns at Villa Marie Convent in Montreal, Quebec. This was a highly regimented and structured environment, a drastic change from the free-spirited life in New England. She appears to have lived there until she was eighteen, and upon completing school, for reasons not clear, she did not return to her parents’ home.

From 1865 until 1880, there is almost no information on Tingley’s life, although she was briefly married to Richard Henry Cook, a printer, in 1867. From 1880 to 1888 all that is known is that she married a second time: George W. Parent was an investigator for New York Elevated. The marriage ended by 1886. By the mid-1880s, for a short time, she adopted and raised two children who were from her first husband’s second marriage. Tingley gave little information about these marriages other than that they were times of great suffering for her.

Living in New York City brought her into contact with the horrible conditions of those living on the East Side, and in 1887 she established a women’s group to visit prisons and hospitals, called the Ladies Society of Mercy. In 1888, she married Philo B. Tingley, a steamship employee and inventor, who would be Katherine’s connection to what would become the most world-changing event in her life, namely meeting William Q. Judge (1851–1896), president of the American Section of the Theosophical Society. The same year he married Katherine, Philo Tingley had joined the Manhattan Masonic Lodge, where Judge was the bursar. Katherine’s work with the poor and particularly with the plight of striking garment workers and their working conditions was suggested as a charitable project. Judge, as the Masonic Lodge treasurer, was sent to check on it, view the project in action and determine if it was worth supporting. Historical documents discovered in 2015 clearly indicate that Judge first saw Katherine in late 1888 at her “Do Good” outreach mission, when, as she would describe later, she saw an unusual gentleman within the crowd of the downtrodden, “strikingly noble of expression, with a look of grave sadness and of sickness too” (Tingley 1926:79). They met in person for the first time in early 1889. “It was then, when I came to know him, that I realized that I had found my place. I was face to face with a new type of human nature: with something akin to that which my inner consciousness had told me a perfect human being might be” (Tingley 1926:79–80). It is remarkable that both Judge and Tingley kept her connection with him and the Theosophical Society totally secret until 1894, even though revealing it would have greatly benefited her position with those Theosophists who were critical of her.

During 1894 and possibly earlier, Katherine took Judge to warmer weather and hot springs in Texas and Arkansas for rest and recuperation from his progressing tuberculosis and Chagres fever. At the same time, she formally joined the Theosophical Society and a month later Judge admitted her to the private Esoteric Section. As it became clearer that Judge’s chronic illness was more serious, Tingley [Image at right] was introduced to a few Theosophists in 1895. Tensions and differences had been building between William Q. Judge and both Annie Besant (1847–1933) and Henry Steel Olcott (1832–1907), who had remained with the parent Theosophical Society headquartered in Adyar, India. There were a complex and contentious series of events, which turned acrimonious at times. This finally came to a head when Judge led the American Section to secede from the Theosophical Society in 1895. Declaring autonomy, the Theosophical Society in America was established and William Q. Judge was elected president for life (Ryan 1975). At that time, Katherine Tingley rapidly moved to the center of governance as Judge’s health declined further.

Upon Judge’s death in 1896, Tingley was elected president for life. Conflicts and schisms followed, but Tingley forged ahead. She quickly shifted the direction of the Theosophical Society in America to create an educational and living community where Theosophy could be practiced in daily life and not only for abstract study of metaphysics or the exploring of visionary realms. It was her aim to make Theosophy “intensely practical” and rooted in a deep altruistic ethic. At the January 13, 1898 convention, she would rename it the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society (UBTS). For the direct application of her philanthropic work she also established the International Brotherhood League, which carried on a very large relief effort in Cuba in 1898 after the Spanish-American War, and also served the sick and wounded soldiers returning from the war. President William McKinley authorized the use of U.S. Government transport to take Tingley, her physicians and other workers to Cuba with large supplies of food, clothing, and medicines (Ryan 1975:348).

In 1896, she gathered together a few supporters for a Theosophical Crusade and headed off around the world, beginning in Europe. In Switzerland she met a young Theosophical Society member, Gottfried de Purucker (1874–1942) for the first time. He had joined the Theosophical Society and met Judge who admitted him to the Esoteric Section without the usual probationary period. De Purucker had been to California a few years before and lived in San Diego in 1893, working on a ranch and leading study groups in the Secret Doctrine by the co-founder of the original Theosophical Society, Helena P. Blavatsky (1831–1891). De Purucker helped Tingley identify the land at Point Loma in San Diego for purchase for the UBTS project (PLST Archive). Meanwhile, the Theosophical “crusaders” traveled through the Middle East and sailed on to India. [Image at right] Early one morning near Darjeeling, Tingley evaded her companions and slipped off up into the foothills. She would return a day or so later, stating she had visited one of Blavatsky’s “Teachers” referring to the encounter as “life transforming” (Tingley 1926:155–162; and Tingley 1928). Some years later Tingley would reflect that her encounter with Blavatsky’s young Tibetan “Teacher” in India had given her the courage to continue with establishing and developing the Point Loma community and the gradual alleviation and reversal of symptoms of her chronic Addison’s kidney/adrenal disease. For Katherine Tingley this was a much needed and spiritually life-changing experience, that brought her the energy and motivation to bring her vision of a “White City in the West” into manifestation.

The Point Loma community began in 1897 with Tingley’s arrival. Great enthusiasm and energy accompanied construction and transformation of the grounds, which were called Lomaland. By 1899, the first five students were enrolled in the Raja Yoga school, and by 1902 there were a hundred, of whom about seventy-five were from Cuba. Collaborating with Emilio Bacardi Moreau (1844–1923), mayor of Santiago, Cuba, she began a mission to build schools in Cuba and to bring Cuban students to the Raja Yoga School at Point Loma. By 1915, the school in San Diego reached its peak with 500 students (Greenwalt 1978). The Raja Yoga curriculum evolved quickly, with its emphasis on the creative arts: the classics, music, drama, art, and literature, as well as science, sports and agriculture. The overarching view that the Point Loma community manifested was what Tingley called the School of Antiquity. According to Tingley’s secretary, Joseph H. Fussell, the purpose of the School of Antiquity was to revive a knowledge of the Sacred Mysteries of Antiquity by promoting the physical, mental, moral and spiritual education and welfare of the people of all countries, irrespective of creed, sex, caste or color; by instructing them in an understanding of the laws of universal nature and justice and particularly the laws governing their own being: the teaching them the wisdom of mutual helpfulness, such being the science of Raja Yoga. (qtg Tingley, Fussell 1917:12).

The School of Antiquity and the entire vision and form of the Point Loma community was patterned after Tingley’s conception of an ancient mystery school, drawing a great deal of her inspiration from Plato and Pythagorean ideas. Elsie Benjamin described the mission as being to replicate an ancient Mystery-School:

In the ancient Mystery-Schools, the pupils were more like children: they have instinct, they have intuition, but they didn’t have full self-consciousness. . . . Because Judge had told K.T., that it is not your mission to teach them technical Theosophy. Your mission is to teach them morals, ethics, universal brotherhood, humanity and self-discipline (Benjamin).

Tingley’s vision of “practical Theosophy” encompassed all of the arts, and much more. For her, the architecture of Lomaland needed to express the sacredness of home and place, as both receptacle and expression of a higher divine source. Her inspiration culturally was, at least in part, Greek and Pythagorean harmonics. Of the unique buildings designed and built at Lomaland, the Greek Theater remains as the single purely classically Greek structure. Other structures, such as the Temple of Peace or the home of Elizabeth Mayer Spaulding, wife of sporting goods magnate Albert G. Spaulding, reflected influences from India and Persia.

Drama played a significant role, not only to develop community esprit d’corps, but for the individual transformational elements involved. From 1903 into the 1930s, the Point Loma Theosophical community produced scores of plays. Tingley chose Greek tragedy and Shakespeare’s dramas for what she viewed as their philosophical perennialism and universal Theosophic ideas, combined with the participatory opportunity that drama has for inner psychological and spiritual development. There were also productions of their own plays, including one based on Socrates’ dialogues in Plato, called The Aroma of Athens. Another, based on the life of the fourth-century Alexandrian neo-Platonist woman philosopher Hypatia, featured Katherine Tingley in the lead role. Reviews in the San Diego Union reflected the central role that the Theosophical productions played in San Diego’s cultural life.

Well-known artists from the U.S. and abroad came to live and work at Lomaland and there developed a unique mystical style. The late 1890s view of art held by Reginald Willoughby Machell (1854–1927), presaged a later twentieth-century phenomenological view found in philosophers like Kitaro Nishida, Maurice Merleau-Ponty or Ananda Coomaraswamy, where an understanding of how the awareness of observer and object are experienced as highly interdependent with the art object and its creation. Said Machell:

Beauty is really a state of mind. The senses only register vibrations, which are translated by the mind into colour, form, sound. . . . It would be more true perhaps to say that beauty is in both observer and observed, but not in one apart from the other (Machell 1892:4).

Another artist who developed a Theosophical style was Maurice Braun (1877–1941). According to Emmett Greenwalt, “Braun was not hesitant in crediting Theosophy with sharpening his insight into nature. To him art was for ‘the service of the divine powers in man,’ or as he otherwise phrased it, ‘art for humanities sake,’ and he saw in Theosophy ‘the champion and inspirer or all that is noble and true and genuine in art’” (Greenwalt 1978: 129–31).

In addition to her devotion to the arts, Katherine Tingley worked for social justice and peace throughout her life. She had been involved in a prison ministry project which involved corresponding with prisoners. She was engaged in movements to abolish capital punishment in California and Arizona. She also organized an anti-vivisection program to protect animal welfare.

In 1922 or 1923, Tingley, around age seventy-six, [Image at right] suffered a minor stroke. It did not cause any noticeable physical debility, but from then until her death, she suffered a kind of emotional agitation at times when under stress. When it became severe, her office staff would call for Gottfried de Purucker to come, given his very calming influence on her in general, and his presence would usually resolve Tingley’s anxieties.

The last seven years of her life can be seen as a gradual decline of the Point Loma experiment, after the dynamic growth and successes of the 1910–1922 period. Her important financial backers of the earlier period had almost all died, and the expenses for maintaining Lomaland had stayed the same. Over this time, significant debt was incurred, even to mortgaging part of the property to maintain the community. The drama, art, music and Raja Yoga school continued, but the income was less. Some long-time residents also left Point Loma at this time, including Hildor and Margueite Barton, Montegue Machell and his wife Coralee (one of the Hanson sisters), and E. August Neresheimer and his wife Emily Lemke. Tingley expressed her dismay and felt that she had not lived up to supporting her committed residents and partisans, especially Reginald Machell.

By late spring of 1929, and approaching the age of eighty-two, Tingley was ready to travel to Europe yet again. Elsie Savage Benjamin, then her secretary, was helping with preparations and sharing her concerns with Tingley about the European trip. She was especially concerned about driving with an inexperienced young man whom Tingley had chosen to be her chauffeur for the tour. Tingley, with her darting, penetrating eyes rapidly responded to Elsie with extraordinary prescience: “Don’t you know, he’s going to be in a car crash and kill someone” (Benjamin n.d.). On May 31, 1929, driving in the fog near dawn on a winding road in Germany about fifty miles from the Dutch border, the chauffeur crashed the car into a concrete bridge pier (Greenwalt 1955:192). Tingley had a double fracture of her right leg and much bruising. Others in the car were also injured. Tingley insisted on being taken to Visingso Island in Sweden rather than to a hospital. Staying in command until the last, and in considerable pain, she even dismissed her doctor rather than be moved to where she could receive better medical care. Katherine Tingley died on Visingso Island, what she considered sacred land, July 11, 1929.

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES

Tingley saw Theosophy, not so much as a body of philosophic or other teaching, but as the highest law of conduct, which is the enacted expression of divine love or compassion” (Tingley The Theosophical Path :3). This divine love could be realized only in a communal setting in which people lived and worked together to express their best selves.

For Tingley, educating children’s minds so that they recognized the Immortal Self was “the truest and grandest thing of all as regards education” (Tingley The Theosophical Path:175). Toward this end she founded the Raja Yoga system in order to develop children’s character so that their true nature would emerge from within. “The real secret of the Raja Yoga system is rather to evolve the child’s character than to overtax the child’s mind; it is to bring out rather than to bring to the faculties of the child. The grander part is from within” (Tingley The Theosophical Path:174). The essential divinity of humanity served as the foundation for this kind of education, with a curriculum integrating body, mind, and spirit, in which all participated. Physical cultivation along with intellectual training were required, so that the intellect would be “the servant, not the master.” Thus, the Raja Yoga system, which Tingley called a “science of the soul,” would pervade all life and activity, becoming “the true expression of soul-ideals” so that art would no longer be extraneous to life, but rather an integral part of the environment (Tingley The Theosophical Path: 159–75). This view toward the arts as the means to develop the whole person helps explain Tingley’s passion for theater, since drama, in her view, reached the heart of everyone.

Clearly influenced by Blavatsky’s writings on education, Tingley nevertheless created a practical program not envisaged by her predecessor. She outlined it as follows:

The basis of this education is the essential divinity of man, and the necessity for transmuting everything in his nature which is not divine. To do this no part must be neglected, and the physical nature must share to the full in the care and attention which are required. Neither can the most assiduous training of the intellect be passed over; it must be made subservient to the forces of the heart. The intellect must be the servant, not the master, if order and equilibrium are to be attained (Emmett W. Small n.d.:93–94).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

While there was no group liturgy at Lomaland, there were daily community practices. Tingley spoke of “the sacredness of the moment and the day” and sought to make Theosophy intensely practical as “the enacted expression of divine love or compassion” (Tingley 1922:3) According to her, “The ideal must no longer be left remote from life, but made divinely human, close and intimate, as of old. NOW is the day of resurrection” (Tingley 1922:94). The daily life practice at Lomaland could be compared to the group spiritual practice in the monastic traditions of east and west, yet with unique differences. The Lomaland practice was based on the creative arts within the context of the wisdom traditions of East and West. Daily group activity was ritualized in common endeavors that were creative, contemplative and inspirational, encapsulated within an altruistic ethic. As she expressed it, “Intellectualism has no lasting power without the practice of the highest morality” (Tingley 1922:98). It was a community, the center of which was the education of children.

The entire community gathered together daily at sunrise at the Greek Theater or in the Temple of Peace. Inspirational phrases were read from literature such as the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddha’s life story in Edwin Arnold’s poetic rendition in The Light of Asia, from Theosophical sources, including Light on the Path by Mabel Collins (1885) and the Voice of the Silence by Blavatsky (1889). This was followed by silent contemplation. Meals were eaten in a group setting and in silence, with a brief recitation before each meal and upon entering the refectory eating area; men and women were grouped together. Idle talk was discouraged and the overall quality of the community was to “do well the smallest duty . . . then joy will come” (Tingley 1927:274–75).

The following invocation, given to the students by Katherine Tingley, was recited in unison primarily at meetings held in the Temple, but also on many occasions elsewhere.

Oh my Divinity! Thou dost blend with the
earth and fashion for thyself Temples of mighty power.

Oh my Divinity! thou livest in the heart-life
of all things and dost radiate a Golden Light
that shineth forever and doth illumine even the
darkest comers of the earth.

Oh my Divinity! blend thou with me that
from the corruptible I may become Incorruptible;
that from imperfection I may become Perfection;
that from darkness I may go forth in
Light.

In addition to the morning gatherings in silence and meditation with devotional readings, there was also community music, both instrumental and choral. Everyone sang in the chorus and played a musical instrument. Tingley considered music to be of central value for inner transformation and life harmony: “The soul power which is called forth by a harmony well delivered and well received does not die away with the conclusion of the piece” (Tingley 1922:178). She would attract to Point Loma the renowned director of the Amsterdam Conservatory of music, Daniël de Lange (de Lange 2003), from 1910 to 1915, who transformed the Raja Yoga orchestra into a symphonic quality musical group.

There were frequent gatherings on cultural and Theosophical subjects for presentations in the Temple of Peace. Regular Point Loma visitors, like art historian Osvald Siren (1879–1966), would give lectures in the Temple illustrated by lantern slides of photos from his recent journeys in China or Asian or European art history (Carmen Small n.d.). Lomaland was an oasis of sophistication in the cultural wasteland that was San Diego at the turn of the twentieth century.

LEADERSHIP

Katherine Tingley’s leadership began in 1896, when she was elected amidst some controversy to succeed William Q. Judge as leader for life of the Theosophical Society in America. This resulted in a number of outer changes, including the change of name to the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society and also the shift of primary focus from lodges to the establishment of the community at Lomaland. These alterations also provided a shift in the internal culture within Tingley’s Theosophical movement at the time, which could be described as a shift from discursive metaphysics to Theosophy in daily activity. There was the practical work for Universal Brotherhood, e.g. promoting global peace, prison outreach, capital punishment abolition and so on, but there was also a new modality, where cultivating an inner ethic of altruistic motivation and awareness was primary. This change opened the door, to what could be described as contemplative Theosophy. As Tingley declared:

Wisdom comes not from the multiplication of spoken or written instructions; what you have is enough to last you a thousand years. Wisdom comes from the performance of duty, and in the silence, and only the silence expresses it (Tingley 1925:343).

As a self-proclaimed dictator, Tingley appeared to wield the primary power in the organization, but as the Point Loma community developed, that control was progressively counterbalanced by her delegating responsibilities to others. There was a complex of interconnected departments and committees at Lomaland, which managed everything from maintaining the extensive agricultural gardens with fruit orchards, to supervising school curriculum, Theosophical programs and running a large communal endeavor. The one area in which Tingley immersed herself was her personal direction and management of the dramatic productions in the Greek Theater at Lomaland and at the Isis Theater in San Diego. She felt most at home in the role of guide to the students’ inner development of character and spirituality when she was absorbed in the dramatic productions. In this context, she would exclaim to one student, “I work best in utter chaos” (Harris n.d.).

Tingley was definitely not a micromanager. This is evidenced, for example, by her giving a free hand to Gottfried de Purucker in 1911 in the editorship of The Theosophical Path. She never read or indicated what or what not to print in it and would read the issues, as time permitted, only after they were published (Emmett W. Small n.d.). When she requested a couple of the resident artists to make some Christmas cards by hand for her, it was left to their creativity to work out the design and quotes used (Lester n.d.). Clearly the rapid development and success in establishing the Point Loma community and Raja Yoga school with all its activities of art, music, drama etc., was the result of her delegating and giving others the reins. In addition, she was away travelling almost every summer for a few months, though she made use of letters, cards and telegrams daily while away, keeping a close connection with everyone, including young students and administrators.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Throughout the Lomaland period of her life, Tingley faced several lawsuits and filed one of her own against the Los Angeles Times for libel, which she won. There was more than one attempt on her life. On one occasion, a man with a loaded pistol attempted to reach where she was seated at the Isis Theater, but was stopped by a quick acting police guard (Harris n.d.). In the later 1920s, Tingley mortgaged part of the Lomaland property, over de Purucker’s pleas not to do so (Emmett W. Small n.d.; Harris n.d.). Most of the long-term residents had given everything they had when arriving at Lomaland in exchange for lifetime residency. Yet their contributions were spent on either maintaining the community or on Raja Yoga School projects in Cuba and Europe, especially since the income from the Raja Yoga School was insufficient to maintain expenses.

After Tingley’s death, the financial condition of Lomaland was precarious, but under the leadership of her successor, Gottfried de Purucker, and thanks to frugal cutbacks and voluntary reduction of residents to around 125, the overwhelming debt had been paid off by the mid-1930s. From 1929 through the 1930s, more than half of the donations received to support Lomaland were coming from Europe. By 1938, while the political conditions in Germany were rapidly deteriorating, donations from European members dried up. De Purucker sent out an urgent letter asking everyone to eliminate any expense possible to save on the monthly outlay (PLST Archive).

During de Purucker’s period, dramatic productions had continued with creative success under the direction of Florence Collison, though the dramas were reduced in pageantry compared to the Tingley era. Also, the Raja Yoga School still had significant numbers of children from San Diego residents, but the entire scope of both community activities and outreach, compared to the peak around 1920, was greatly diminished. There was insufficient income without the outside donations.

By the end of 1941, the community was hard pressed financially, with additional stress nearby when the U.S. government placed large military bunkers with artillery both north and south of the property and out on Point Loma itself. Tension was heightened with the U.S. declaration of war with Japan over the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. De Purucker had already sent out individuals scouting California for a smaller less encumbered property and developed a plan to shrink the number of residents yet again. He had found a property in Cupertino that he preferred, but it could only accommodate a small staff of fifteen or so. In January 1942, the decision was made to sell the property and move to Covina, east of Los Angeles, where a boys’ school facility was purchased. The move in spring of 1942 was followed by de Purucker’s sudden death from a heart attack at Covina on September 27. De Purucker left no indications of a designated heir, but he did write out a letter giving advice and direction for interim governance and recommendations for the cabinet to follow for electing a president for the society (PLST Archive).

Internal conflict within the group amidst questions and assertions of spiritual authoritative power would break out in 1945 over the cabinet’s election of a new leader. As Yeats expressed it poetically, “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold,” and amidst dissension the magic of Point Loma had ceased and withdrawn, leaving antagonists with varying assertions and claims to inheriting the earlier holy grail. Despite the hopeful move to Covina, the qualities nurtured and grown at Point Loma could not endure. The sacred architecture was gone, music and the arts had faded, and the daily community group activities were radically reduced.

IMAGES
Image #1: Photograph of Katherine Tingley in the in the early 1900s.
Image #2: Photograph of Katherine Tingley on the way to meeting with one of Helena P. Blavatsky’s teachers in India.
Image #3: Photograph of Katherine Tingley in the mid-1920s.

REFERENCES

De Lange, Daniël. 2003. Thoughts on Music: Musical Art as Explained as One of the Most Important Means of Building up Man’s Character. The Hague: International Study Centre for Independent Search for Truth; reprinted from The Theosophical Path where it was published in ten installments between November 1916 and May 1918.

Fussell, Joseph H. 1917. The School of Antiquity: Its Meaning, Purpose and Scope. Point Loma, CA: Aryan Philosophical Press.

Greenwalt, Emmett. 1955, revised 1978. California Utopia: The Point Loma Community in California, 1897–1942. San Diego: Point Loma Publications.

Machell, Reginald. 1892. Theosophical Siftings. Volume 5.

Ryan, Charles. 1937, revised 1975. H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement. Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Writings by Katherine Tingley

1922. Theosophy. The Path of the Mystic. With Grace Frances Knoche. Point Loma, CA: Woman’s International Theosophical League.

1925. The Wine of Life. With preface by Talbot Mundy. Point Loma, CA: Woman’s International Theosophical League.

1926. The Gods Await. Point Loma, CA: Woman’s International Theosophical League.

1928. The Voice of the Soul. Point Loma, CA: Woman’s International Theosophical League.

1978. The Wisdom of the Heart: Katherine Tingley Speaks. Edited by W. Emmett Small. San Diego: Point Loma Publications.

Tingley, Katherine, ed. 1911–1929. The Theosophical Path [Theosophy periodical].

Primary Archival References

Point Loma School of Theosophy Archive. Accessed from http://www.pointlomaschool.com on 5 March 2017. (PLST Archive in text).

Recorded Interviews, Oral Histories, and Personal Writings.

Benjamin, Elsie Savage. n.d. Recorded Interviews. [Secretary to Katherine Tingley].

Harris, Helen. n.d. Notebooks. [Lomaland Resident].

Harris, Iverson L., Jr. n.d. Oral History. [Lomaland Resident].

Lester, Marian Plummer. n.d. Oral History. [Lomaland Resident].

Small, Carmen H. n.d. Oral history. [Lomaland Resident].

Small, W. Emmett. n.d. Oral History. [Lomaland Resident].

Post Date:
8 March 2017

Share

Gurumayi (Swami Chidvilasananda)

GURUMAYI TIMELINE

1955 (June 24):  Gurumayi was born as Malti Shetty in Bombay (Mumbai), India.

1982 (April 26):  She was formally initiated by the then-guru of Siddha Yoga, Swami Muktananda, as an ascetic in the tradition and renamed Swami Chidvilasananda (the Sanskrit title translates to “the religious teacher [swami] who is the bliss of the play of consciousness”); Gurumayi, “immersed in the guru,” is an honorific that is used less formally.

1982 (May 3):  She was co-consecrated with her brother Swami Nityananada by Swami Muktananda to be his successors as gurus of Siddha Yoga.

1982 (October 2):  Swami Muktananda died and Swami Chidvilasananda and her brother became the gurus of Siddha Yoga

1985 (November 10):  Swami Chidvilasananda was installed as the sole guru of Siddha Yoga; she has held this status continuously to the present day.

BIOGRAPHY

Malti Shetty, born June 24, 1955, was the oldest child of a Bombay restaurateur and his wife. The very next year, Swami Muktananda (1908–1982), whose Sanskrit name means “the bliss of liberation,” in the culmination of decades of spiritual practice (sadhana), received permission to establish an ashram at Ganeshpuri, near Bombay (Mumbai) and to teach from his guru, Bhagavan Nityananda (“the venerable one who is eternally joyful”). The charismatic Swami Muktananda named his teaching “Siddha Yoga” and instituted weekend programs for the transmission of spiritual energy from guru to disciple, shaktipat or shaktipat-diksha (shaktipat initiation), a format that was distinctive from the classical full-time residence model of guru-disciple and that allowed for the participation of diverse devotees in ashram events. Shetty’s parents became disciples, and by 1960 they were bringing her, her sister and two brothers to the ashram on weekends.

The guru bestowed formal shaktipat initiation on Malti in 1969, when she was fourteen years old (Durgananda 1997:64), and she began to reside at the ashram by the time she was eighteen. Swami Muktananda “concerned himself with every detail of Malti’s diet and schedule, making sure that she ate food that fostered meditation” (Durgananda 1997:65). Malti was both like and unlike other devotees: Along with other devotees, she furthered her spiritual progress by her own devotional commitment to the guru as well as her engagement in intensive spiritual practices (sadhana) such as meditation. Yet to Swami Muktananda she stood out as special, as in his 1969 prediction that one day she would serve as a global beacon: “‘You know,’ he said, ‘that girl Malti is a blazing fire. One day she will light up the entire world’” (Durgananda 1997:65).

Swami Muktananda instituted world tours to spread the teachings of Siddha Yoga in what he envisioned to be a worldwide “meditation revolution.” In 1975, he appointed Malti as his translator during his second world tour in Oakland, California. During the years 1974–1975, Muktananda established many of the features of Siddha Yoga practice that were to remain core elements of the path for the next quarter century, including the guru personally bestowing shaktipat on devotees at weekend Intensive programs, establishing ashrams globally, and creating guidelines for teaching courses on aspects of Siddha Yoga practice and theology. Grooming Malti as a leader was part of these developments. In 1980, Muktananda decreed that Malti would deliver the public talks at the ashram on Sunday nights, and in 1981 she was made executive vice-president of SYDA Foundation, the non-profit organizational structure supporting the teaching program (Pechilis 2004b:224–29).

In April 1982, at the age of twenty-six, Malti was formally initiated into the ascetic lifestyle (sannyasa) by her guru and given the formal name of Swami Chidvilasananda (“the bliss of the play of consciousness”). Ten years later, she wrote of her transformative experience of identity with the universal divinity (expressed as He and as Brahman in the passage) during that ceremony:

At one point during the pattābhisheka, the ceremony during which Baba Muktananda passed on to me the power of his lineage, he whispered So’ham [I am He] and aham Brahmāsmi [I am of Brahman] in my ear. I experienced the mantra as an immensely powerful force which rocketed at lightning speed throughout my bloodstream and created an upheaval in my entire system. I instantly transcended body-consciousness and became aware that all distinctions such as inner and outer were false and artificial. Everything was the same; what was within me was also without. My mind became completely blank. There was only the pulsating awareness “I am That,” accompanied by great bliss and light.

When my mind again began to function, all I could think was, “What is Baba? Who is this being who looks so ordinary, yet has the capacity to transmit such an experience at will?”

I knew beyond a doubt that the mantra was God. I had never experienced a force so mighty, yet at the same time so soothing (Swami Chidvilasananda 1992:xxiii).

Two weeks later, Swami Muktananda consecrated as his successors both Swami Chidvilasananda and her brother Swami Nityananda (b. 1962). Formerly Subash Shetty, Nityananda had been resident at the ashram and initiated into sannyasa in 1980. This consecration of the two siblings surprised people because of their youthfulness, their familiarity to devotees since they had grown up at the ashram, and the fact that Siddha Yoga taught that one should devote oneself to a single guru (Williamson 2010:119). Five months later, the two actually became the gurus of Siddha Yoga, at Muktananda’s samadhi (“immersion in enlightened consciousness,” often used as in this case to indicate the death of a spiritual leader) on October 2, 1982.

Swami Chidvilasananda, who is more commonly referred to as Gurumayi (“immersed in the guru”), which expresses her continuing dedication to Muktananda, became the sole guru of Siddha Yoga on November 10, 1985. Gurumayi led the Siddha Yoga movement through a number of scandals, including that of her brother Nityananda leaving and then wanting to reassume the co-guruship ( “Former SYDA Co-guru Explains” 1986; Thursby 1991; Harris 1994:93–94, 101–04; Durgananda 1997:126–34; Healy 2010; Williamson 2010:118–21); and through allegations which emerged shortly after the guru’s death and have intensified over the years that Muktananda had sexually abused female devotees (Rodarmor 1983; Caldwell 2001; Radha 2002; Shah 2010; Salon Staff 2010; Williamson 2010:114–17).

Gurumayi persevered in her leadership of Siddha Yoga through her close following of traditions and practices that her guru Muktananda had put in place (ashrams, shaktipat, weekend Intensive programs, also known as Intensives), as well as her own star power, with disciples eager to catch a glimpse of her at the ashram and vying for seats close to her at official programs or Intensives (Williamson 2010:124). Gurumayi also established innovative programs, for instance a talk on New Year’s Eve that revealed the Yearly Message for contemplation throughout the coming year; such annual messages consist of short phrases that emphasize purity of mind, belief in love, and knowledge of the truth (“Gurumayi’s Messages and Message Artwork” 1991–2017). During the late 1980s, the ashram in South Fallsburg, New York more than tripled in size, and this period into the early 1990s has been called the Golden Era of the Siddha Yoga Movement (Williamson 2010:121). (For more about Siddha Yoga ashrams see below.) In 1997, Gurumayi established the Muktabodha Indological Research Institute (“About Muktabodha” 2017) in New Delhi, India, for the study and preservation of classical scriptures of India. There are many publications by the gurus, swamis, and scholars of Siddha Yoga on spiritual teachings and theology.

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES

 The teachings that Swami Muktananda designated as Siddha Yoga are understood by the organization to have deep roots in Hindu theology. The term “siddha” has been used for many centuries in Indian religions to refer to a “perfected being,” and it is often associated with secret teachings. South Indian Tamil tradition recognizes a remote lineage of siddhas (siddhars) who are distinguished by their achievement of powers of immortality and healing (Weiss 2009). The first guru in the Siddha Yoga lineage, Bhagavan Nityananda (1900–1961), is remembered as a great yogi who possessed miraculous powers of healing, and who had no need of ceremonial events because he could transmit shaktipat to a worthy disciple through the light of his gaze (Durgananda 1997:11–22, esp. 19). Drawing in part on formulations in the classical Hindu philosophical treatises, the Upanishads, Swami Muktananda’s understanding of the term “siddha” emphasized the power of meditation to effect the realization of the identity between the human spirit and the divine.

The true Siddha has realized his own true nature through meditation and knowledge and has obliterated his ego and become one with the Universal Spirit. He unites with Shiva and becomes Shiva Himself. He is a true Siddha, a genuine Siddha. Such a Siddha was Ramakrishna, such a one was Sai Baba of Shirdi, and such a Siddha was Nityananda Baba [Bhagavan Nityananda]; they all became one with Shiva and became Shiva (Muktananda 1974:173, cited in Muller-Ortega 1997:169).

In Siddha Yoga, there is a lineage of three gurus: Bhagavan Nityananda, Swami Muktananda, and Swami Chidvilasananda, and each are understood to be perfectly self-realized beings.

Inherent to the definition of “guru” is that she or he transmits the power of true self-realization to the disciple. This transmission is effected in multilayered ways, including: the transmission of shaktipat from guru to disciple, which is an expression of the guru’s intention (sankalpa) that often serves as an initial awakening; the guru’s bestowal of a mantra or sacred oral formula; the guru’s grace; the guru’s oral and written teachings; and the guru’s visual presence as beheld (darshan) by the disciple (Mahoney 1997). Through these practices, the disciple comes to recognize through the example of the guru that the divine is actually within him or herself.

The guru serves as a funnel for the disciple to encounter and understand teachings from the voluminous Hindu scriptures that point to the divine within—from revealed texts such as the Vedas (of which the Upanishads are part) to remembered texts such as the Bhagavad Gita, to treatises from the philosophical schools of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmiri Shaivism, to songs and oral teachings (Brooks 1997). In their publications and talks, Swami Muktananda and Gurumayi freely draw from this vast spiritual heritage: “Since the Siddha Yoga gurus are not proponents of any one form of doctrinal worship (siddhānta), they are not committed to traditionalist ‘schools’ of thought or particular philosophical identities” (Brooks 1997:291). Siddha Yoga devotees access the texts in several ways, including talks by the guru, study at retreats, and the Siddha Yoga Home Study Course.

One text in particular, the Guru Gita (“Song of the Guru”), features centrally since it is the text that Siddha Yoga practitioners recite daily. As described by Muktananda:

If anyone were to ask me which is the one indispensable text, I would answer, “The Guru Gītā.” This is so supremely holy that it makes the ignorant learned, the destitute wealthy and the scholarly fully realized. The Guru Gītā is a supreme song of Shiva, of salvation. It is a veritable ocean of bliss in this world. It encompasses the science of the absolute, the yoga of the Self. It gives vitality to life. It is a harmonious composition; its 182 stanzas in varied verse patterns beautifully describe the importance of devotion to the Guru, his role, his nature and his distinguishing characteristics. If a person who is devoted to the Guru sings this song, he easily attains all powers, realizations and knowledge, fulfilling the aim of yoga (Muktananda 1983:xiv).

The Guru Gita text as printed in The Nectar of Chanting may be eclectic itself; the origin of its 182 verses is to date unknown: “Said to be within either the Skanda Purāṇa, or, more rarely, the Padma Purāṇa. . .certain verses appear also in the Kulārṇava Tantra and other Tantric sources. . . .This status is similarly not unusual for sources belonging to traditions of mystical yoga. . .” (Brooks 1997:291). This key text that is the basis of daily practice in Siddha Yoga may have been compiled in this form by Muktananda himself.

Swami Muktananda influentially fashioned lasting features of the Siddha Yoga path. Motivated by a global vision, he established institutions and instructional procedures to effect the processes of transmission from guru to disciple in a “radical” making of shaktipat initiation accessible to a global audience (Jain 2014:199); his successor, Gurumayi, has maintained and enhanced these institutions and methods of spiritual instruction. The most prominent Siddha Yoga ashrams are large physical campuses founded by Swami Muktananda, including the first Siddha Yoga ashram, Gurudev Siddha Peeth, near the town of Ganeshpuri in the state of Maharashtra, India (est. 1956); the Siddha Yoga Ashram in Oakland, California (est. April 28, 1975); and the Shree Muktananda Ashram in South Fallsburg, New York (est. 1978–1979). He also created the weekend Intensive program, in which devotees gather in residence at an ashram to perform collective chanting, listen to teachings by the guru or credentialed Siddha Yoga teachers, hear testimonials by other devotees, engage in service (seva), and participate in workshops on the teachings; depending on the participant, these activities may inspire an experience of shaktipat. Although clearly rooted in Hindu tradition and actively deploying Hindu sources (for example, the Guru Gita is chanted in Sanskrit) Muktananda envisioned Siddha Yoga to be a universal path and Gurumayi has continued that approach. The Siddha Yoga vision statement describes the path as:

For everyone, everywhere,
to realize the presence of divinity
in themselves and creation,
the cessation of all miseries and suffering,
and the attainment of supreme bliss
(“Siddha Yoga Vision Statement” 2016).

In Siddha Yoga, the universality of accessibility frames the specificity of tradition: “Hindu-inspired” is thus a more apt characterization of the Siddha Yoga path than “Hinduism.”

Gurumayi has maintained the teachings and practices of Muktananda, including the centerpiece that is now known as the Shaktipat Intensive (“Questions and Answers” 2016). However, she has brought her own emphases and personal style to the established framework. Scholarly observers have suggested several ways to characterize her teachings; for example, service through unselfish action: “If one overall ethical teaching could be said to characterize her ministry, it is the teaching of unselfish action. The years since 1982 have seen an increasingly conscious attempt to mold the Siddha Yoga movement into a fusion of individuals and institutions that embody that message.” Gurumayi herself has said, “My message is ‘do it!’” (Durgananda 1997:136, 138). She has put increased emphasis on disciples performing practices (sadhana) on a daily basis on their own as guided by the teachings, as well as outreach services (“PRASAD Project” 2016; “The Prison Project” 2016).

Gurumayi’s focus can be contrasted with that of her guru Muktananda, drawing on a distinction made by Richard Gombrich: Muktananda was “soteriological” in focus while Gurumayi is “communal”:

Soteriological religions emphasize the practices and beliefs that are necessary for attaining salvation—and attaining it quickly. Communal religions emphasize practices and beliefs that ensure the continuity of social life. . . . Much of [Gurumayi’s] teaching is directed toward practical, everyday matters of living in the world. . . . Although the Hindu-based practices of chanting Sanskrit texts and performing worship (puja) still occur in Siddha Yoga, Gurumayi’s emphasis is discovering one’s own inner wisdom through contemplating ordinary daily experiences within the context of scriptural texts or Gurumayi’s or Muktananda’s words (Williamson 2005:154, 155, 156).

The practical, “communal” nature of the Siddha Yoga path today brings together spiritual knowledge and personal experience in the world, grounding the former and enhancing the meaning of the latter. One aspect of this emphasis on applying the teachings to practical, everyday living in the world is the Siddha Yoga Home Study Course program, which is “four courses designed to invigorate and support your sadhana” to “engage in active study and application of Siddha Yoga teachings” (“SIDDHA YOGA® Home Study Course” 2017).

What makes the Home Study Course possible is Gurumayi’s expansive use of technology (Pechilis 2004b: 233–36). Today it is a given that gurus have a website through which to explain and promote their teachings, but Gurumayi was a pioneer in the use of technology as a global medium, beginning in 1989, “when the first ‘satellite’ Intensives were broadcast around the world, [and] the term ‘global shaktipat’ began to take on literal meaning” (Durgananda 1997:150). As Swami Durgananda explains:

In 1994, an Intensive was broadcast by audio hookup to the tiny Siddha Yoga center in St. Petersburg, Russia. The next year, a French student took a trip to Russia and, toward the end of his trip, spent some time in a Russian Orthodox monastery there. The abbot there noticed the student’s photograph of Gurumayi. “Oh, you’re with Gurumayi,” the abbott said. Surprised, the student asked, “How do you know Gurumayi?” “Everyone knows Gurumayi,” replied the abbot, explaining that her name and photograph were widely circulated in the Russian spiritual community—no doubt by students who had taken that Intensive (Durgananda 1997:150–51).

By 2002, a visually-based global satellite broadcast was used for Intensives, the unveiling of the Siddha Yoga Yearly Message and the “first ever year-long global curriculum focused on the Siddha Yoga Message,” the Siddha Yoga Message Course. These were described as opportunities to “participate together as a global sangham [community]” (Pechilis 2004b:236). Through the satellite, the guru can be both in one place and in many places at the same time. It was and is a postmodern enactment of the simultaneity of the universal and the particular that pervades Siddha Yoga: The path as both Hindu and universally accessible; the guru as both personal and universal consciousness; the guru as both present and absent. The context is the very large role that images of the guru play in Siddha Yoga’s representation of access to the guru. “At South Fallsburg [ashram], photographs of the guru—with her thousand-watt smile, wide eyes, and elegantly chiselled cheekbones—adorn nearly every wall, cash register, shop counter, and shelf, as well as her devotees’ private meditation altars and many of their car dashboards” (Harris 1994:92). They saturate the ashram walls, they are for sale in the ashram’s physical and online bookshops, and they are tightly controlled as vehicles of contact with the guru. Live images of the guru during an Intensive or the unveiling of the Yearly Message, as situated in this larger context of the importance of the guru’s image, constitute an assertion of technological connection as intimacy (Pechilis 2004b). That images are increasingly tightly controlled is demonstrated by the discontinuation in 2013 of public access online to Gurumayi’s Yearly Message with accompanying artwork (“Gurumayi’s Messages and Message Artwork” 1991–2017). Now a devotee must log in to be able to view (“to have darshan ”) of Gurumayi’s Message Artwork (“Darshan of Gurumayi’s Message Artwork for 2016” 2016).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Currently, Siddha Yoga recognizes six ashrams and a host of meditation and chanting groups worldwide (“Siddha Yoga Ashrams” 2016). The ashrams have a special status, since they are a powerful “body” of the guru (Gold 1995), and they are expansive, often architecturally specific spaces for practice of the path; some of the ashrams have been constructed according to the norms of Hindu science of architecture (vastu shastra or vāstu śāstra). The six ashrams are in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia; Ganeshpuri, India; Oakland, California; Boston, Massachusetts; and South Fallsburg, New York. Meditation centers are designated organizational spaces, often in major cities. Chanting and meditation groups are held within a Siddha Yoga student’s home.

Online information from the Siddha Yoga website about the ashrams reveals several different models of ongoing practice apart from holidays. The Australian ashrams in Sydney and Melbourne routinely have community gatherings (satsang, enlightened company) and recitation of the Guru Gita on Saturdays and Sundays, seemingly an accommodation to the devotees’ work week. Also prioritizing weekends, the schedule at the Oakland, California ashram has a more elaborate ongoing program of chanting, welcome orientations for people new to the Siddha Yoga path, meditation and study gatherings. The Ganeshpuri ashram and the South Fallsburg ashram are both accessible only to committed members of Siddha Yoga, by application, for long-term daily service activities; and the Boston ashram is a retreat center. Long-term seva (devotional service) practitioners who reside at the ashrams would typically follow a daily schedule such as: Early morning meditation and chanting session at 3:00 in the morning, followed by another session at 4:30 in the morning, in which the Guru Gita is chanted; then breakfast; followed by a morning session of seva, during which one might help clean the ashram or perform outdoor work; noontime chanting; afternoon seva; and finally dinner, evening chanting, and lights out by 10:00 in the evening. Vegetarian meals are taken by sevites, and there is segregation between male and female staff in terms of accommodation and seating for chanting and meditation.

Such long-term residents are joined by residential participants in the Siddha Yoga Intensive, during which the guru bestows shakti (spiritual power or energy) on the devotees. Baba Muktananda held many one- or two-day Intensives during a given calendar year, and until 2005, Gurumayi did so as well. In 2006, she declared that there would be one Global Siddha Yoga Shaktipat Intensive per year, in October, to coincide with Baba Muktananda’s mahasamadhi or act of consciously and intentionally leaving his body (resulting in death). As explained by Siddha Yoga: “After mahasamadhi, the shakti of an enlightened being continues to be ever-present and all-pervasive, uplifting the world illuminating the lives of devotees. . . . [A] sacred occasion enhances the power of one’s practices” (“Questions and Answers” 2016).

The yearly calendar of holidays, when members of the community are expected to gather in large numbers, is constituted by such days of “sacred occasion,” the majority focused on the Siddha Yoga gurus, which provide an enhanced context for practice. The dates in 2017 were:

January 1: New Year’s Day (when Gurumayi releases her Yearly Message).

February 24: Mahashivaratri (the Great Night of Shiva, occurring in February/March).

May 10 :Baba Muktananda’s Lunar Birthday.

June 24: Gurumayi Chidvilasananda’s Birthday.

July 8 :Gurupurnima (the full moon day in the month of Ashadha (July-August); day to honor one’s guru).

August 8: Bhagavan Nityananda’s Solar Punyatithi (death anniversary).

August 15: Baba Muktananda’s Divya Diksha (the day Baba received divine initiation from his Guru, Bhagavan Nityananda).

October 5: Baba Muktananda’s Lunar Mahasamadhi (act of consciously and intentionally leaving one’s body).

“In addition to these holidays, Pitru Paksha is a Siddha Yoga observance. This sacred time from the Indian tradition is devoted to remembrance of one’s ancestors. In 2017, Pitru Paksha is September 6–19” (“Siddha Yoga Holidays and Celebrations 2017” 2017).

LEADERSHIP

Discussion of whether female gurus today, and specifically Gurumayi, may be considered feminist has yielded different assessments for and against (Wessinger 1993; Sered 1994; Puttick 1997; Pechilis 2011). Much recent scholarship has illuminated the specific ways in which female Hindu or Hindu-inspired leaders change the historically male-defined categories of guru and sannyasin (ascetic), which may provide more concrete information for such assessments. A major issue is the ways in which the guru is set apart from ordinary social life. Traditionally, a significant element in women’s rise to religious authority has been their renunciation of marriage. Renunciation of marriage was a factor in the construction of male spiritual authority, which was based on renunciation of ordinary social occupations and concerns; however, male gurus were often married and a male renouncer could live with his wife in the forest, although the category of sannyasin was defined as an unmarried male wandering ascetic. For women, in particular, the expectation of marriage and child-bearing has been pronounced in the Indian context. As Meena Khandelwal explains, for a variety of cultural reasons the pressures on women are greater:

Given the importance of heterosexual marriage and procreation in South Asian cultures generally, a man’s decision to renounce householder life is likely to be met by opposition from family and society; this is especially true if he is either young and unmarried or married with dependents at home. Even so, there are scriptural, historical, and contemporary precedents for male renunciation at any age, and so it is considered a legitimate path for men even if discouraged by kin. Marriage is even more compulsory for women, and for this reason most research on South Asian women has focused on their domestic lives. While most women in South Asia aspire to obtain a good husband, kind in-laws, and healthy children, those who do not are likely to face intense pressure to conform” (Khandelwal 2009:1005).

What Sondra Hausner and Meena Khandelwal say about female ascetics applies to female gurus as well: “All have wondered whether to marry, remarry, or stay married, and have struggled with how to negotiate the unquestioned South Asian social value of having a husband and being a wife” (Hausner and Khandelwal 2006:3). Medieval stories of female gurus in Hindu tradition situate them as wives; in modern times, female gurus exhibit a range of stances on the issue (Pechilis 2004a:7, 15, 28–29, 34), including being married, being separated from a husband, or rejecting demands that they marry. For some, including Gurumayi, the issue of marriage does not come up in biographical accounts.

An emphasis on personal experience is another hallmark of female gurus in history and today (Pechilis 2011; Pechilis 2012), and can be seen in Gurumayi’s emphasis on sadhana (spiritual practice). Although it is clear that her guru Baba Muktananda saw something special in her, what Gurumayi emphasizes in her own accounts of the years before she became guru is that her intensive practice gradually attuned her mind to her guru’s (Pechilis 2004b:226–27). In terms of devotees’ sadhana, in the late 1990s Gurumayi effected an important shift away from her guru Swami Muktananda’s and her own practice of personally interacting with devotees, especially at weekend Intensive programs. The Intensives had been famous for always having the guru in residence, and devotees could approach the guru and receive a graceful touch with a peacock feather wand on their bowed heads. Instead, the guru began to be absent from Intensives; if she appeared, it was by satellite video transmission. Discussion of the change in Siddha Yoga publications encouraged the view that by her absence, the guru sought to encourage devotees to focus on their practice of the teachings rather than on her presence (Pechilis 2004b:229–33).

Gurumayi’s shifting presence and absence suggests an interesting dynamic between intimacy and distance in the paths of female gurus (Pechilis 2015). In terms of interaction with the guru, one model is an “event intimacy” cultivated through defined moments of the guru’s presence at scheduled gatherings, which often deploy technology to widen the reach; however, much of the spiritual work of the disciples is done away from the guru’s embodied presence, in contrast to the traditional gurukula system in which the students live with the guru. This event intimacy characterizes Gurumayi’s leadership. A different model is that many female guru-ascetics operate on a more local level, where they have personal experience with their followers on a daily basis; they offer opportunities for “everyday intimacy.” For example, a contemporary guru-ascetic in north India holds frequent small-gathering meetings with her devotees in which she narrates stories of everyday encounters that illustrate themes of duty, destiny, and devotion, which create a gendered “rhetoric of renunciation” that has at its center a concept of engaged, devotional asceticism (DeNapoli 2014). Of course, the number of devotees and organizational structure are factors here: Siddha Yoga is a global movement that has become a highly systematized, vertical organization constructed of hierarchies to manage various aspects of the institution, including spiritual instruction, finance, and research. It has made recent efforts to focus more directly on those who commit to the path, and to exclude others; for example, closing the Shree Muktananda Ashram in South Fallsburg to all but long-term students; enhancing the status of regional centers by holding more, including “global,” activities at them; promoting the home-study course; holding retreats for up to twenty-five students; and making some information on the Siddha Yoga website accessible only by sign in.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

The most prominent issue in understanding the nature of the guru in a Western context is the deep-seated cultural suspicion of the category, based on the lack of a concept of a “perfected being” in Western tradition. Traditions that originated in South Asia have long histories of thinking about and asserting the reality of a perfected being, with the historical Buddha probably the most well-known example across the globe. Adoration of a living person can read as a “cult” in the Western contextalthough the culture of celebrity so prominent in the West displays many similarities. Traditionally in South Asia, surrender and loyalty are due to the guru, which amplifies the vulnerability of the devotee within a relationship that is in many ways comparable to a relatively common power differential (parent-child, teacher-student, employer-worker). Many female gurus offset this vulnerability of the devotee by embodying the nurturing persona of mother, evident in their titles (ma, amma) and behavior (such as Ammachi ‘s hugging), as well as by the public dimension they cultivate, such as visibility, accessibility, service, and teachings on their websites. Controversial aspects of the paths of the male gurus popular in the West in the 1960s, such as a closed and secretive residential campus, are outmoded. Still, to what extent a specific guru operates in an authoritarian mode and a specific devotee’s response to a guru renders the guru authoritarian for her or for him does need to be assessed, since there remains the potential for the devotee to be overwhelmed by the relationship (Cornille 1991:23–30; Kramer and Alstad 1993; Storr 1997). Even a cursory internet search reveals that there are vocal groups of ex-Siddha Yoga devotees who feel betrayed by Siddha Yoga gurus.

Significantly, there has been a healthy skepticism of the guru in Indian tradition, especially on the issues of the acquisition of money and sexual exploitation (Narayan 1989; Kang 2016). Also, it is worth remembering that, in the traditional model, study with the guru prepared a man to move into a healthy, socially meaningful life of work and marriage; it was not generally speaking an end in itself. These nuances, coupled with female gurus’ emphasis on life experiences, are now beginning to inform Western reflections on experiences of the guru path. What we see emerging are personal critical reflections that more calmly and less polemically reflect on areas of disappointment in or perceived limitations of the guru, written by former devotees who reflect on their experiences with the guru in the context of a longer view of their own evolving life experiences; I have called these a “discourse of constructive disappointment” (Pechilis 2012:127). Such reflections have emerged mainly around female gurus, including Gurumayi of Siddha Yoga (Caldwell 2001; Szabo 2009). It remains to be seen if the guru-disciple relationship, even in its breakdown, can lead to generative modern discussion of interdependence and human spiritual growth.

REFERENCES

Brooks, Douglas Renfrew. 1997. “The Canons of Siddha Yoga: The Body of Scripture and the Form of the Guru.” Pp. 277-346 in Meditation Revolution: A History and Theology of the Siddha Yoga Lineage, edited by Douglas Renfrew Brooks, Swami Durgananda, Paul E. Muller-Ortega, William K. Mahoney, Constantina Rhodes Bailly, S. P. Sabharathnam. South Fallsburg, NY: Agama Press.

Caldwell, Sarah. 2001. “The Heart of the Secret: A Personal and Scholarly Encounter with Shakta Tantrism in Siddha Yoga.” Nova Religio 5:1–51.

Chidvilasananda, Swami. 1992. “Preface.” Pp. xix–xxiv in I Am That: The Science of Hamsa from the Vijnana Bhairava, by Swami Muktananda. South Fallsburg NY: SYDA Foundation.

Cornille, Catherine. 1991. The Guru in Indian Catholicism: Ambiguity or Opportunity of Inculturation? Leuven: Peeters.

“Darshan of Gurumayi’s Message Artwork for 2016.” 2016. Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA Path.® January 1. Accessed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/teachings/gurumayis-message-artwork-2016/invitation on 5 March 2017.

DeNapoli, Antoinette. 2014. Real Sadhus Sing to God: Gender, Asceticism, and Vernacular Religion in Rajasthan. New York: Oxford University Press.

Durgananda, Swami. 1992. “To See the World Full of Saints: The History of Siddha Yoga as a Contemporary Movement.” Pp. 3-161 in Meditation Revolution: A History and Theology of the Siddha Yoga Lineage, edited by Douglas Renfrew Brooks, Swami Durgananda, Paul E. Muller-Ortega, William K. Mahoney, Constantina Rhodes Bailly, S. P. Sabharathnam. South Fallsburg NY: Agama Press.

Gold, Daniel. 1995. “Guru’s Body, Guru’s Abode.” Pp. 230-50 in Religious Reflections on the Human Body, edited by Jane Marie Law. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

“Gurumayi’s Messages and Message Artwork.” 1991–2017. Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA® Path. Accessed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/a-sweet-surprise/messages on 5 March 2017.

Harris, Lis. 1994. “Oh Guru, Guru, Guru.” The New Yorker 70: 92–109.

Hausner, Sondra L., and Meena Khandelwal. 2006. “Introduction: Women on their Own.” Pp. 1-36 in Women’s Renunciation in South Asia: Nuns, Yoginis, Saints and Singers, edited by Meena Khandelwal, Sondra L. Hausner, and Ann Grodzins Gold. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Healy, John Paul. 2010. “Schisms of Swami Muktananda’s Siddha Yoga.” Marburg Journal of Religion 15:1–15. Accessed from https://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2010/articles/healy_2010.pdf on 5 March 2017.

“Former SYDA Co-guru Explains.” 1986. Hinduism Today, January. Magazine web edition. Accessed from http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=358 on 5 March 2017.

“SIDDHA YOGA ® Home Study Course.” Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA ® Path. Accessed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/homestudy on 28 February 2017.

Jain, Andrea R. 2013. “Muktananda: Entrepreneurial Godman, Tantric Hero.” Pp. 190-209 in Gurus of Modern Yoga, edited by Mark Singleton and Ellen Goldberg. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kang, Bhavdeep. 2016. Gurus: Stories of India’s Leading Babas. New Delhi: Westland Ltd.

Khandelwal, Meena. 2009. “Research on Women’s Renunciation Today: State of the Field.” Religion Compass 3:1003–14.

Kramer, Joel, and Diana Alstad. 1993. The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power. Berkeley: Frog Books.

Mahoney, William K. 1997. “The Guru-Disciple Relationship: The Context for Transformation.” Pp. 223-76 in Meditation Revolution: A History and Theology of the Siddha Yoga Lineage, edited by Douglas Renfrew Brooks, Swami Durgananda, Paul E. Muller-Ortega, William K. Mahoney, Constantina Rhodes Bailly, S. P. Sabharathnam. South Fallsburg, NY: Agama Press.

Muktananda, Swami. 1983 [1972]. “Introduction.” Pp. x–xvii in The Nectar of Chanting. South Fallsburg: SYDA Foundation.

Muller-Ortega, Paul E. 1997. “The Siddha: Paradoxical Exemplar of Indian Spirituality.” Pp. 165-211 in Meditation Revolution: A History and Theology of the Siddha Yoga Lineage, edited by Douglas Renfrew Brooks, Swami Durgananda, Paul E. Muller-Ortega, William K. Mahoney, Constantina Rhodes Bailly, S. P. Sabharathnam. South Fallsburg NY: Agama Press.

“About Muktabodha.” Muktabodha Indological Research Institute. Accessed from http://www.muktabodha.org/about.htm on 28 February 2017.

Muktananda, Swami. 1974. Satsang with Baba, Volume 1. Oakland, CA: SYDA Foundation.

Narayan, Kirin. 1989. Saints, Storytellers and Scoundrels: Folk Narrative in Hindu Religious Teaching. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Pechilis, Karen. 2015. “Women Gurus in Hinduism.” Prabuddha Bharata 120:401-09. Accessed from http://advaitaashrama.org/Content/pb/2015/062015.pdf on 5 March 2017.

Pechilis, Karen. 2012. “The Female Guru: Guru, Gender and the Path of Personal Experience.” Pp. 113-32 in The Guru in South Asia: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Jacob Copeman and Aya Ikegame. London: Routledge.

Pechilis, Karen. 2011. “Spreading Śakti.” Pp. 97-120 in Woman and Goddess in Hinduism: Reinterpretations and Re-envisionings, edited by Tracy Pintchman and Rita D. Sherma. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pechilis, Karen. 2004a. “Introduction: Hindu Female Gurus in Historical and Philosophical Context.” Pp. 1-49 in The Graceful Guru: Hindu Female Gurus in India and the United States, edited by Karen Pechilis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pechilis, Karen. 2004b. “Gurumayi, the Play of Shakti and Guru.” Pp. 219-43 in The Graceful Guru: Hindu Female Gurus in India and the United States, edited by Karen Pechilis. New York: Oxford University Press.

“PRASAD Project.” Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA ® Path. Acceseed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/prasad on 28 February 2017.

“The Prison Project.” Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA ® Path. Accessed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/syda-foundation/prison-project on 28 February 2017.

Puttick, Elizabeth. 1997. Women in New Religions: In Search of Community, Sexuality and Spiritual Power. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

“Questions and Answers with Swami Shantananda about the Siddha Yoga Shaktipat Intensive.” Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA® Path. Accessed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/shaktipat-intensive/what-is-shaktipat on 28 February 2017.

Radha. 2002. “My Story,” September 30. Leaving Siddha Yoga. Accessed from http://leavingsiddhayoga.net/Radha_story.htm on 5 March 2017.

Rodarmor, William. 1983. “The Secret Life of Swami Muktananda.” Originally published in CoEvolution Quarterly. Accessed from http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/secret.htm on 5 March 2017.

Salon Staff. 2010. “Siddha Yoga Responds to Salon Story.” Salon, August 16. Accessed from http://www.salon.com/2010/08/16/sya_response_to_eat_pray_love_story/ on 5 March 2017.

Sered, Susan. 1994. Priestess, Daughter, Sacred Sister: Religions Dominated by Women. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shah, Riddhi. 2010. “The ‘Eat, Pray, Love’ Guru’s Troubling Past.” Salon, August 14. Accessed from http://www.salon.com/2010/08/14/eat_pray_love_guru_sex_scandals/ on 5 March 2017.

“Siddha Yoga Ashrams, Meditation Centers, and Chanting and Meditation Groups.” Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA ® Path. Accessed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/centerslist on 28 February 2017.

“Siddha Yoga Holidays and Celebrations 2017.” Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA ® Path. Accessed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/holidays on 28 February 2017.

“The SIDDHA YOGA® Vision Statement.” Welcome to the SIDDHA YOGA ® Path. Accessed from http://www.siddhayoga.org/vision-and-mission-statements on 28 February 2017.

Storr, Anthony. 1997. Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinners, and Madmen: A Study of Gurus. New York: Free Press.

Szabo, Marta. 2009. The Guru Looked Good. Woodstock: Tinker Street Press.

Thursby, Gene. 1991. “Siddha Yoga: Swami Muktananda and the Seat of Power.” Pp. 165-81 in When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religions, edited by Timothy Miller. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Weiss, Richard S. 2009. Recipes for Immortality: Medicine, Religion, and Community in South India. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wessinger, Catherine. 1993. “Woman Guru, Woman Roshi: The Legitimation of Female Religious Leadership in Hindu and Buddhist Groups in America.” Pp 125-46 in Women’s Leadership in Marginal Religions: Explorations Outside the Mainstream, edited by Catherine Wessinger. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Williamson, Lola. 2005. “The Perfectibility of Perfection: Siddha Yoga as a Global Movement.” Pp. 147-67 in Gurus in America, edited by Thomas A. Forsthoefel and Cynthia Ann Humes. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Williamson, Lola. 2010. Transcendent in America: Hindu-inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion. New York: New York University Press.

Post Date:
7 March 2017

Share

Phoebe Palmer

 

PHOEBE PALMER TIMELINE

1807 (December 18):  Phoebe Worrall was born in New York City to Dorothea Wade Worrall and Henry Worrall.

1827 (September 28):  Phoebe Worrall married Walter Palmer.

1836 (February 9):  The first Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness met at the Palmer home.

1837 (July 26):  Phoebe Palmer experienced holiness.

1838:  Phoebe Palmer began speaking at camp meetings.

1839:  Phoebe Palmer became the first woman to lead a Methodist class composed of both men and women in New York City.

1840:  Phoebe Palmer assumed the leadership of the Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness.

1840:  Phoebe Palmer began traveling to surrounding states to preach at revivals and camp meetings.

1843:  Phoebe Palmer published The Way of Holiness with Notes by the Way: Being a Narrative of Religious Experiences Resulting from a Determination to Be a Bible Christian.

1845:  Phoebe Palmer published Entire Devotion to God.

1848:  Phoebe Palmer published Faith and Its Effects.

1850:  Phoebe Palmer played a prominent role in establishing the Five Points Mission in New York City.

1853:  Phoebe Palmer traveled to Canada to preach at her first camp meeting there.

1857:  Phoebe Palmer conducted a revival in Hamilton, Ontario.

1859:  Phoebe Palmer published The Promise of the Father; or, A Neglected Specialty of the Last Days.

1859–1863:  Walter Palmer traveled with Phoebe Palmer to conduct revival services throughout the British Isles.

1864:  The Palmers bought Guide to Holiness magazine and Phoebe Palmer became editor.

1866:  Phoebe Palmer published Four Years in the Old World: Comprising the Travels, Incidents, and Evangelistic Labors of Dr. and Mrs. Walter Palmer in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

1866–1870:  Phoebe Palmer extended her ministry by holding services throughout the United States and Canada.

1874 (November 2):  Phoebe Palmer died.

BIOGRAPHY

Phoebe Worrall [Image at right] was born into a devout Methodist household on December 18, 1807. Her family lived in New York City, which became her lifetime home. Due to regular church attendance and family devotions, Phoebe was religious from an early age and was never able to pinpoint the exact moment of her conversion. She married Walter Palmer on September 28, 1827. They had six children, three of whom lived to adulthood. The Palmers were active laypeople in the Methodist Episcopal Church and participated in numerous charitable activities. Both taught Sunday school classes. In 1839, Phoebe Palmer became the first woman to lead a class of both women and men in New York City.

Between 1827 and 1837, Phoebe sought the experience of holiness, which is the second work of grace following conversion, which is the first work of grace. John Wesley (1703–1791), the founder of Methodism, promoted holiness as an experience where Christians became “dead unto sin” and pure within. Those who had experienced holiness manifested God’s love in their hearts. Palmer attributed her protracted ten-year quest for holiness to the fact that she was never able to affirm the witness of the Holy Spirit, which Wesley had maintained was the basis for claiming holiness. Partly based on her own experience, Palmer developed a “shorter way” to holiness, which involved consecration and faith followed by testimony. She also incorporated a redefinition of the witness of the Holy Spirit. Following her “shorter way,” Palmer dated her experience of holiness to July 26, 1837.

In the midst of Phoebe Palmer’s search for holiness her sister, Sarah Worrall Lankford, had been instrumental in establishing the Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness in 1836, which evolved from Methodist women’s prayer meetings. The Tuesday Meeting was held in the home that the Palmers and the Lankfords shared. When the Lankfords moved in 1840, Palmer replaced Sarah as leader of the Tuesday Meeting. She continued in this role for the rest of her life whenever she was in New York City. The Palmers moved twice to larger homes to accommodate the crowds, which often exceeded 300 people. Initially restricted to Methodist women, the meeting grew into a multi-denominational gathering that included men.

Palmer initiated her public ministry in 1839. By the next year, she was traveling to surrounding states preaching at revivals in
churches and at camp meetings [Image at right], which generally were held outdoors in more rural areas. The content of her sermons was the same regardless of the location. Palmer did not ignore the goal of bringing sinners to Christ through sermons, which was historically the focus of revivals, but her emphasis was on holiness. By 1853 her schedule included Canada. Her labors there in 1857 resulted in more than 2,000 conversions and hundreds of Christians who claimed the baptism of the Holy Ghost or holiness (Palmer 1859:259). Her ministry there contributed to the general Prayer Revival of 1857–1858, which resulted in more than 2,000,000 converts in the United States and the British Isles. Between 1859 and 1863, Palmer preached at fifty-nine locations throughout the British Isles (White 1986:241–42). At one meeting in Sunderland, 3,000 attended her services held over a period of twenty-nine days, with some people turned away. She reported 2,000 seekers there, including approximately 200 who experienced holiness under her preaching (Wheatley 1881:355, 356). Between 1866 and 1870 she held services throughout the United States and eastern Canada (Raser 1987:69–70). At a camp meeting in Goderich, Canada in 1868, about 6,000 gathered to hear her preach (Wheatley 1881:445, 415). Palmer continued to accept preaching engagements until shortly before her death. Overall, she preached before hundreds of thousands of people at more than 300 camp meetings and revivals.

Palmer’s husband was supportive of Phoebe Palmer’s ministry from the outset and he was not troubled by her greater reputation. Walter Palmer gave up his medical practice in 1859 to travel with her full-time. He often assisted in services by reading Scripture and commenting on the text.

Palmer authored numerous articles and several books that concentrated on her theology of holiness. She wrote from her own experience and included examples from the experiences of others. Her books included Entire Devotion to God (1845) and Faith and Its Effects (1848). The Palmers purchased Guide to Holiness magazine in 1848 and Phoebe edited it from then until her death in 1874. It reached a considerable circulation of approximately 40,000 (Raser 1987:3).

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES

As a Methodist layperson, Phoebe Palmer affirmed the theology of her denomination. She did not offer an elaboration of Methodist doctrines other than holiness, which was the focus of her writing and preaching ministry. Palmer utilized numerous synonyms for holiness, such as sanctification, full salvation, promise of the Father, entire consecration, and perfect love. Her first book, The Way of Holiness with Notes by the Way (1843), [Image at right] was her spiritual autobiography that provided a roadmap for achieving holiness. Based on her own pursuit of holiness she explained a “shorter way,” which consisted of three steps: consecration, followed by faith, and then testimony.

Entire consecration required that the seeker after holiness symbolically sacrifice everything to God, including possessions and relationships, on the altar, which she identified as Christ. She drew on Matthew 23:19 (“the altar sanctified the gift,” KJV) and Exodus 29:37 (“Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy,KJV) to validate this conviction. “Altar” phraseology became associated with Phoebe Palmer and is her “best-known contribution” (White 1986:22).

The second step on the way of holiness was faith. According to Palmer, since the Bible promised that God would receive the sacrifice that had been laid symbolically on the altar, the seeker’s responsibility was to accept holiness by faith. Palmer emphasized that this act was “taking God at His word” (Palmer 1843, 28), which resulted immediately in holiness. Recounting her own experience in the third person, Phoebe Palmer reported that as soon as she expressed faith in God’s ability to make her holy, “The Lord…led her astonished soul directly into the ‘way of holiness’” (Palmer 1843:22). Further, relying on her experience, Palmer declared that an emotional confirmation of the witness of the Holy Spirit did not have to accompany the act of faith. Lack of emotion had been a barrier that had prevented her from claiming holiness during her extended pursuit. While most advocates of holiness, following John Wesley, spoke of the witness of the Holy Spirit that verified the act of holiness, Palmer claimed that this was unnecessary. Palmer taught that seekers should rely instead on God’s promise as recorded in the Bible: “He that believeth, hath the witness in himself” (quoting from I John 5:10, Palmer 1848:152). According to Palmer, God imparts holiness instantaneously following the act of faith.

The third step on the way of holiness was testimony. Palmer maintained that sanctified individuals must publicly declare that they had experienced holiness or risk losing it. This requirement thrust many women into speaking at mixed gatherings of women and men, which was highly unusual at the time.

The “shorter way” reflects the Arminian theology of Wesleyanism. Illustrating the Arminian affirmation of free will, Palmer encouraged individuals to pursue holiness actively by laying their all on the altar. Consecration was a human action. Palmer referred to herself and others as co-workers with God. God consecrated the offering and acknowledged the seeker’s faith by imparting holiness. Neither God nor humans acted alone.

While focusing on the “shorter way” as the means of achieving holiness, Palmer also affirmed Wesley’s understanding of the consequences of obtaining holiness. Holiness removed inbred sin, which is the sinful nature that persists despite conversion. Being dead unto sin resulted in a clean heart or inward purity. Palmer and most other holiness adherents also advocated outward purity. Palmer shunned worldly behavior, which included anything that would hinder entire consecration to God. Attending plays or reading novels qualified as worldly activities that should be avoided. Drinking alcoholic beverages constituted worldliness as well. Palmer also opposed wearing jewelry or fashionable clothing.

The emphasis on love as an expression of holiness also had a dual dimension. While love of God was utmost, Palmer and other holiness believers engaged in activities that exhibited God’s love to those around them. This expression of social Christianity motivated by God’s love has become known as social holiness. It reflected Palmer’s emphasis on the responsibility of holiness adherents to be useful. Her ministry in the slums of New York City modeled social holiness. A notable example was her prominent role in founding the Five Points Mission in 1850 in lower Manhattan where the worst slums in New York City converged. Committed to addressing both the spiritual and physical needs of the neighborhood’s inhabitants, the Mission became one of the first settlement houses in the United States with a chapel, schoolrooms, and housing for twenty families (Raser 1987, 217).

Palmer also associated power with the experience of holiness, stating succinctly that “holiness is power” (Palmer 1859:206). She acquired her understanding of empowerment from the account of Pentecost in Acts 1–2 of the Bible. Palmer’s emphasis on power contributed to her affirmation of women preachers since at Pentecost the power of the Holy Spirit fell on both men and women and they began preaching in the streets of Jerusalem. Palmer justified her own ministry and affirmed the calling of other women preachers in her book, The Promise of the Father; or, a Neglected Specialty of the Last Days (1859). Her comprehensive argument extended to 421 pages. She derived her title from Jesus’ admonition to his followers to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4–5, 8). The fulfillment of the promise was the baptism of the Holy Spirit and its accompanying power. Palmer maintained that the power displayed at Pentecost was not restricted to the first Christians, but was available to subsequent generations of Christians through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, another term she used to indicate the experience of holiness. Palmer referenced this supernatural power by incorporating other synonyms, such as the gift of power, baptism of fire, and Pentecostal flame, throughout Promise of the Father.

Palmer reminded her readers frequently that the preaching at Pentecost was a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. Joel had declared God’s promise: “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Joel 2:28, KJV). Utilizing other Bible verses, she established that “prophesying” was a synonym for “preaching.” She addressed the two passages in the Bible (1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:11–12) that opponents used to try to prohibit women from preaching and quickly dismissed them, illustrating their irrelevance to the argument against women preachers. She countered with numerous verses that condoned women’s preaching and listed women mentioned in the Bible who engaged in public ministry. She concluded there was no biblical basis for excluding women from ministry. She sprinkled quotations throughout Promise of the Father from prominent Christian scholars and clergy who agreed with her. She devoted a significant portion of the book to providing examples of women throughout history who were preachers. This included contemporaries of John Wesley. He had gradually come to the conclusion that he should affirm and encourage women to preach. His decision was based primarily on pragmatic grounds, because listeners responded to the preaching of women. Palmer never extended her argument to include women’s ordination. The Methodist Episcopal Church, along with most other denominations, refused to ordain women at the time. She relied on prophetic authority bestowed by the Holy Spirit rather than priestly authority conferred by ecclesiastical credentials at ordination. She invoked Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than man,” to cement her case (Palmer 1859:160, 359). Prophetic authority superseded human jurisdiction.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

The Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness was Palmer’s signature religious activity. It was informal in nature, but there were several expectations. Even though clergy and bishops were often in attendance, they were not permitted to lead or monopolize the meetings. An unusual characteristic of these meetings was that women spoke even when men began to attend. In that time period, women generally were expected to remain silent both in religious gatherings or any other public places where both men and women were present. The format of the Tuesday Meeting consisted of introductory comments, singing, prayer, and a short comment on a Bible passage. Participants shared their testimonies of holiness for the majority of the time. Near the conclusion of the meeting, others who came in search of holiness were often given the opportunity to pray, following Palmer’s shorter way in their efforts to experience holiness.

LEADERSHIP

Scholars agree that Palmer played a primary role in popularizing the doctrine of holiness during the nineteenth century. Thousands responded to her plea to seek salvation or holiness. Her writings spread the theology of holiness far beyond her physical presence. The Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness was so popular that more than 300 similar gatherings had been established around the world by the end of the nineteenth century.

Palmer has been called the mother of the Wesleyan/Holiness movement whose defining doctrine is holiness. Her distinctive means of achieving holiness became the standard for Wesleyan/Holiness groups and denominations such as the Free Methodist Church, the Church of the Nazarene, and the Church of God (Anderson, IN). While some individuals left the Methodist Episcopal Church, believing it had abandoned the doctrine of holiness, Palmer never advocated separating from it. One prominent Wesleyan/Holiness organization was the National Campmeeting Association for the Promotion of Holiness founded in 1867. While Palmer was not a leader of the group, it was her theology of holiness that defined it.

Palmer’s example inspired women to follow in her footsteps and become preachers. One of the most prominent examples was Catherine Mumford Booth, who co-founded The Salvation Army. Opposition that Palmer faced while preaching in England motivated Booth to publish Female Ministry in 1859 and to begin her own ministry. Most Wesleyan/Holiness churches carried Palmer’s argument for women’s public lay ministry to the next step and ordained hundreds of women during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Palmer’s own denomination, then known as the Methodist Episcopal Church, did not grant full ordination to women until 1956.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Palmer faced opposition to her preaching because she was a woman, but she did not dwell on personal challenges to her ministry based on her sex. She never discussed her decision not to seek ordination, but, more than likely, she realized her request would be denied and her opportunities for lay ministry would have been curtailed as a result of her application.

Several critics, up to the present, have attempted to make the case that Palmer opposed even the preaching of laywomen. They quote her comment, “preach we do not,” without considering the following phrase, “that is, not in a technical sense,” which she defined as “dividing and subdividing with metaphysical hair-splittings in theology” (Wheatley 1881:614). It was a specific style of preaching that she rejected for women. Instead, Palmer engaged in narrative preaching in which she shared her religious experience and the experiences of others. Promise of the Father, as well as her evangelistic work, further undermine the false perception that Palmer sought to prohibit women from preaching.

Contemporaries also debate the extent of Palmer’s feminism. Those arguing against her feminism do not take into account all of her statements. Palmer did admit that she did not write Promise of the Father to promote women’s rights. But, while she claimed to condone the nineteenth-century constrictions of “woman’s sphere,” her affirmation of women preachers stretched its boundaries. She also expanded her argument to allow for exceptions in that she maintained that women could sometimes hold leadership positions in government (Palmer 1859:1–2).

The primary challenge that Palmer faced was criticism of her doctrine of holiness, which began during her lifetime and persists to this day. Opponents focused on her explanation of the means of holiness (the ”shorter way”) rather than on her understanding of holiness itself. Her detractors claimed that some of her views deviated from John Wesley’s theology, maintaining that she incorporated unique elements into her theology of holiness. Palmer claimed that her beliefs were biblical and that they corresponded with Wesley’s theology. She would have been more accurate had she expanded her list of those who influenced her to include Hester Ann Rogers (1756–1794) and John Fletcher (1729–1785), Wesley’s colleagues who also contributed to her theology. By taking this broader perspective, everything that Palmer advocated had already been expressed by Methodist predecessors.

Palmer’s opponents challenged several components of her theology, including her emphasis on altar terminology, her use of Pentecostal language, and her understanding of the witness of the Spirit. Wesley did not incorporate the altar into his theology of holiness. While many contend that Palmer’s use of the altar to symbolize consecration is her unique contribution to holiness doctrine, Palmer discovered this concept in Rogers’ writings and popularized Rogers’ altar theology. Palmer’s incorporation of Pentecost as a model for holiness and adoption of Pentecostal language such as “baptism of the Holy Spirit” can be traced to both Rogers and Fletcher. Likewise, these two individuals deviated from Wesley’s theology of the witness of the Spirit. According to Wesley, one needed to wait for the internal confirmation by the Holy Spirit with its accompanying emotion before claiming the experience of holiness. Contrary to Wesley, however, Rogers and Fletcher claimed emotion was not always present when holiness occurred, but took place when the seeker demonstrated faith in the biblical promise of holiness. There was no need to wait, hence the name “shorter way.” While Phoebe Palmer’s detractors have been correct in pointing out her departures from Wesley, they erred in assuming these innovations were original to her.

IMAGES:
Image #1: Photograph of Phoebe Palmer, evangelist and author, who often is referred to as the mother of the Wesleyan/Holiness movement.
Image #2: Drawing of a typical Methodist camp meeting. Image taken from Wikimedia at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page.
Image #3: Photograph of the cover of The Way of Holiness with Notes by the Way. Image taken from the Open Library at https://openlibrary.org/.
Image #4: Sketch of the Five Points Mission House.

REFERENCES

 Palmer, Phoebe. 1865. Four Years in the Old World: Comprising the Travels, Incidents, and Evangelistic Labors of Dr. and Mrs. Walter Palmer in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. New York: Foster and Palmer, Jr.

Palmer, Phoebe. 1859. The Promise of the Father; or, A Neglected Specialty of the Last Days. Facsimile edition. Salem, OH: Schmul, n.d.

Palmer, Phoebe. 1848. Faith and Its Effects: or Fragments from My Portfolio. Facsimile edition. Salem, OH: Schmul, 1999.

Palmer, Phoebe. 1845. Entire Devotion to God. Originally published as Present to My Christian Friend on Entire Devotion to God. Facsimile edition. Salem, OH: Schmul, 1979.

Palmer, Phoebe. 1843. The Way of Holiness with Notes by the Way: Being a Narrative of Religious Experience Resulting from a Determination to Be a Bible Christian. Facsimile edition. Salem, OH: Schmul, 1988.

Raser, Harold E. 1987. Phoebe Palmer: Her Life and Thought. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Stanley, Susie C. 2002. Holy Boldness: Women Preachers’ Autobiographies and the Sanctified Self. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Wheatley, Richard. 1881. The Life and Letters of Mrs. Phoebe Palmer. Facsimile edition. New York: Garland, 1984.

White, Charles Edward. 1986. The Beauty of Holiness: Phoebe Palmer as Theologian, Revivalist, Feminist, and Humanitarian. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press of Zondervan Publishing House.

Post Date:
6 April 2016

Share

Lois Roden

LOIS RODEN TIMELINE

1916 (August 1):  Lois Irene Scott was born in Stone County, Montana.

1937 (February 12):  Lois and Ben Roden married.

1940:  Lois and Ben Roden became members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Kilgore, Texas.

1945:  The Rodens visited the Davidians’ Mount Carmel Center, near Waco, Texas, and were disfellowshipped by their local Seventh-day Adventist Church.

1955:  Ben Roden announced Branch Davidian teachings .

1962:  The Rodens moved to Mount Carmel and established the Branch Davidian community there.

1977:  Lois had a vision that the Holy Spirit is feminine. She became co-prophet of the Branch Davidians with her husband until his death.

1978:  Ben Roden died and Lois assumed full leadership of the Branch Davidians.

1980:  Lois published a new journal, SHEkinah, to promote her views.

1983:  Lois lost authority to David Koresh who won majority support among the Branch Davidians.

1986 (November 10):  Lois Roden died; she was buried in Israel.

BIOGRAPHY

Lois Irene Scott [Image at right] was born in Stone County, Montana, August 1, 1916. She married Benjamin L. Roden on February 12, 1937. They  had six children (George, Benjamin, Jr., John, Jane, Sammy and Rebecca) (Newport 2006 :117). The Rodens joined a Seventh-day Adventist church at Kilgore, Texas in 1940. They were fully committed to the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen Harmon White (1826-1915) concerning the imminent Endtime events and return of Christ as well as the need to observe the seventh-day sabbath (Saturday).

In 1945, Lois and Ben Roden made contact with the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists (Newport 2006 :118), led by their prophet, Victor Houteff (1885-1955). The Davidians were living in community on property named Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas. Disfellowshipped by their Seventh-day Adventist church in Kilgore, Ben and Lois Roden adopted Davidian views. After Victor Houteff died, Ben showed up at Mount Carmel and announced that he was the new Elijah. Citing Isaiah 11:1, he also made the claim that God had revealed to him the new name of Christ: “The Branch” (Zechariah 6:12). This marked the appearance in 1955 of a third distinctive group in this line of millennial Adventists, the “ Branch Davidians.” The Davidians rejected Ben’s leadership at first, initially accepting the leadership of Florence Houteff, Victor’s wife (Pitts 2009).

Ben’s [Image at right] hope was to establish a physical Davidian millennial kingdom in Israel. Both Ben and Lois spent much time in Israel during the next several years trying to achieve this goal. They created a pilot settlement at Amirim, which Lois directed. But the group as a whole never moved there (Doyle with Wessinger and Wittmer 2012:199). Whereas Ben was quiet, Lois was characterized as “exceptionally dynamic and [the leader of] the group for a number of years” (Newport 2006:115, 136).

Victor Houteff’s widow, Florence, announced the great eschatological moment for April 22, 1959 and Davidians gathered at the new Mount Carmel property located east of Waco, which she had purchased after selling the original Mount Carmel property. The prediction failed. Florence Houteff’s failure offered an opening to Ben Roden and Lois Roden to assert leadership of the Davidians; most of the small remnant of Davidians remaining at Mount Carmel accepted the prophetic leadership of Ben Roden in 1962. The Rodens spent time securing control of the Mount Carmel property and the full allegiance of members.

As Ben’s health was declining in 1977, Lois Roden’s most significant personal religious experience occurred. During the night she had a vision of a silver shimmering feminine figure (Lasovich 1981), which she identified as “the Holy Spirit of God” (Bonokoski 1981). Her vision convinced the Branch Davidians that she was the next prophet of the group.

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES  

Lois Roden’s most enduring legacy among the Branch Davidians was her teaching that the Holy Spirit is feminine. In 1980, she published a mimeographed three-part study entitled By His Spirit (Roden 1980). The group secured an offset press, and in December 1980 she launched SHEkinah, [Image at right] a regularly published journal for disseminating her teaching (Roden and Doyle 1980–1983). She, along with Clive Doyle as co-editor and printer, searched newspapers, popular magazines and academic publications for articles that explored the ideas of the feminine character of God and the ordination of women. Some mainline Protestant denominations had begun ordaining women in the 1950s, and many more denominations began ordaining women as ministers in the 1970s. Meanwhile, feminist scholars studying the early Christian churches found evidence for belief in the feminine character of God and the existence of female clergy among early Christian churches.

Adventists, Davidians and Branch Davidians did not find women’s leadership to be novel, but Lois Roden’s belief in the Holy Spirit as female was revolutionary. She appropriated these proto-feminist emphases during her leadership of the Branch Davidians. She based her understanding of the Trinity on scripture, noting that the text of Genesis 1:26-27 (King James Version) reads, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” She explained her reasoning as follows:

Because Adam and Eve were both made in the images of the Godhead I saw that Eve was not made in the image of the Father or the Son, but in the image of a feminine person of the Godhead. So it had two persons who said, “Let us make man in our image, male and female.” That was the key that I got, to know that the woman was a symbol on earth of the Holy Spirit in heaven (Bryan 1980).

She cited word studies to support her argument: the Hebrew word for spirit, ruach, is feminine, and one word for God, elohim, is plural. Moreover, she drew a logical analogy from a human family (father, mother, son) to support her view of the feminine presence in the Trinity. Roden’s views were criticized, but she held to her interpretation. She convinced the Branch Davidians that the Holy Spirit is feminine, a view that surviving faithful Branch Davidians still hold. For outsiders, this was Lois Roden’s most well-known claim. She said that her teaching was not motivated by feminism, but rather by her vision of the Holy Spirit and her understanding of scripture (Lasovich 1981).

Lois Roden’s other major idea was her defense of the authority of women in positions of religious leadership in the Christian tradition. The movement for women’s rights during the 1960s and 1970s (the Second Wave feminist movement) was a fundamental revolution in American life. Recognizing leadership by women in churches was controversial: conservative denominations resisted the change while mainline churches began to embrace it. Roden took a mediating position on the issue, arguing, “The male shouldn’t dominate, and the female shouldn’t dominate.… The Church should play a more active role in bringing about the equality of the sexes” (Halliburton 1980). This argument was not just theoretical. Lois Roden’s son, George Roden (1938–1998), contested her leadership of the Branch Davidians throughout his mother’s tenure. She needed the argument to justify her leadership of the group.

For Lois Roden these two ideas, the feminine nature of the Holy Spirit and women’s religious authority, were closely related. Her vision in 1977 opened her thought to embrace the feminine side of God. She saw women’s leadership roles in religious organizations as a corollary to understanding the Holy Spirit as female (Halliburton 1980).

RITUALS/PRACTICES 

Ben Roden implemented observance of the annual Jewish festivals of Pentecost and Tabernacles as well as Passover, giving them eschatological interpretations (Newport 2006:148-50). The Branch Davidians regarded these as especially holy seasons of the year that reminded them of their beliefs about the coming Judgment, which would witness the destruction of many and the salvation of others. Under Lois Roden’s leadership Passover continued to serve an important theological function among the Branch Davidians (Doyle with Wessinger and Wittmer 2012:88–91). Passover was also the occasion for many Branch Davidians living elsewhere to travel to Texas to join the Mount Carmel group for worship and Bible studies (Haldeman 2007:29, 93-94).

The central ritual was what the Branch Davidians called “the Daily.” According to Newport (2006), the Daily was the name given to their gatherings at 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. for Bible study and teaching by the Branch Davidian prophet. Lois added to the Daily the taking of unleavened crackers and grape juice as “Emblems” representing the body and blood of Christ (Wessinger 2013).

Whereas most churches center on a weekly gathering for worship, the Branch Davidians were devoted to searching for truth from the Bible; therefore regular gatherings for teaching remained the center of their religious life. Since the deaths of eighty-two Branch Davidians in the conflict with federal agents at Mount Carmel in 1993, a scattered remnant of Branch Davidians who have taken regular jobs in society have had to modify their practice. They are not able to gather as a community for daily study. The Branch Davidians remaining in Waco gather on Saturday for Bible study.

LEADERSHIP

Seventh-day Adventists had a well established tradition of accepting biblical interpretation by modern prophets. Beginning with Martin Luther (1483–1546), Adventists accepted a succession of Christian leaders, including John Knox (1513-1572), John Wesley (1703–1791), Alexander Campbell (1788–1866), William Miller (1782-1849) and Ellen White , who were recognized as prophets because they shed new light on understanding the faith. The Branch Davidians also included more recent prophets, Victor Houteff, Ben Roden, and now Lois Roden.

Prophets in the Davidian-Branch Davidian lineage typically did not reject teachings of their predecessors, but rather built on them and added “new truths” to understanding scriptural prophecies. Houteff likened their task to unrolling a scroll, revealing new insights about the faith (Houteff 1930:114). Hence their key role was to serve as teachers who illuminated the meaning of scriptural texts. The prophets were regarded as possessing “the Spirit of Prophecy,” and Branch Davidians were eager to hear new teachings (Pitts 2014).

Also significant was the precedent of a woman prophet set by Ellen White, who was recognized as the most influential voice in Seventh-day Adventism. Lois Roden (1979a) often referred to “Sister White,” and the Branch Davidians had no problem following the leadership of “Sister Roden.” While accepting the practices of previous leaders, Lois Roden was also deeply influenced by changing gender roles in American culture, and she added two new progressive teachings of her own, making strong arguments for the feminine character of God and for women’s religious leadership.

Lois Roden inherited both the leadership style as well as the teachings and practices of the Branch Davidians, which she modified to meet the needs of her day. Victor Houteff [Image at right] established the style of leadership practiced among the Davidians/Branch Davidians. He set forth the organization of the General Association of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists in a constitution he called The Leviticus (Houteff 1943). In it he was named the president; the other executive officers ( vice president, treasurer and secretary ) were family members and one close associate who held office only as long as they were approved by the president. Following Houteff’s lead, Ben Roden also composed a Leviticus for the General Association of the Branch Davidian Seventh-day Adventists.

During the years of Ben’s leadership of the Branch Davidians, Lois was a very active leader in her own right. Women such as Bonnie Haldeman (David Koresh’s mother) wrote with respect and affection for the work of “Sister Roden” (Haldeman 2007). Many other Branch Davidians attest to her initiative and spiritual leadership in religious matters during Ben’s leadership. Lois exercised the leadership in establishing a Branch Davidian community in Israel. Her loyalty to her husband’s teachings is notable. He was of Jewish extraction and sought not only to establish the new kingdom in Israel, but also to be buried there. She honored that wish, having his body exhumed and reburied in Israel.

Lois Roden developed her vision of the feminine character of the Holy Spirit as her most important teaching. Immediately after her vision she began to offer studies and publish them in “Christ and the Holy Spirit” (Roden 1978). Significantly the Branch Davidians accepted this view as a teaching from God and therefore recognized Lois Roden as a legitimate prophet who could teach along with her husband Ben as co-prophet. She also took practical legal steps to consolidate her leadership by having members sign a circular letter written in legal language, granting her full legal and financial control of the Branch Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association assets (Roden 1979b). Ben Roden died October 22, 1978, and Lois led the group from 1978 to 1983.

In accepting Lois Roden’s prophetic leadership, the Branch Davidians recognized a position of authority far beyond the level exercised by ministers in most denominations. They accepted her opinions as the voice of God. She worked tirelessly to promote her own “present truth” or new teachings. She travelled across the United States, to Canada, Israel and elsewhere delivering her message. She demonstrated leadership by serious devotion to her tasks, and she spent her time and resources imparting her teachings. Her deep commitment to Branch Davidian teaching was apparent.

Lois Roden had labored with her husband Ben Roden among the Branch Davidians for more than twenty years and then displayed enormous energy during her short-lived period of prophetic leadership. She published a new journal, SHEkinah, co-edited and printed by Clive Doyle (Roden and Doyle 1980–1983), and produced numerous audiotapes to disseminate her views. She traveled constantly, teaching her view of the Branch Davidian message and giving numerous interviews to newspaper reporters who were interested in presenting her unique views to the public.

Lois Roden inherited structures created by the previous generation of believers, including a base at Mount Carmel, a following of about forty Branch Davidians, and financial resources to travel and publish (Doyle with Wessinger and Wittmer 2012:40). She had the assistance of devoted followers, including her secretary Catherine Matteson, and Clive Doyle. She struggled with her son George Roden and eventually with newcomer Vernon Howell (later known as David Koresh, 1959-1993 ), who arrived at Mount Carmel in 1981, to maintain her leadership. She fended off her son’s attempt to replace her (Roden and Roden 1985–1986). But according to Catherine Matteson (2004), by 1983 most of the Branch Davidians believed that Lois Roden had lost the “Spirit of Prophecy” and consequently that authority was transferred to David Koresh. Lois Roden died in 1986. Her remains were transported to Israel where she was buried beside her husband.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Through her will and courage Lois Roden prevailed as Branch Davidian leader for a while, but she had to confront serious challenges to her leadership from male competitors. First, her son George [Image at right] was a rival throughout her years of prophetic leadership. He offered both gender and theological arguments to support his claim to succeed his father as prophet; failing that, he resorted to force. He was mentally unstable and violent, carrying a gun on the Mount Carmel grounds and into the church and threatening people (Doyle with Wessinger and Wittmer 2012:53–54). Because of fear of George Roden’s violence, the majority of the Branch Davidians, along with their new leader Vernon Howell/David Koresh, left to live in a camp they constructed in the woods near Palestine, Texas (Doyle with Wessinger and Wittmer 2012:60–61). In 1988, they were able to return to Mount Carmel under Koresh’s leadership.

The other person vying for prophetic leadership of the Branch Davidians was Vernon Howell/David Koresh. He came to Mount Carmel in 1981 and, by accounts, worked hard to be accepted by the community. Lois Roden befriended him, and his stature in the community rose rapidly. She cultivated him, served as an example of leadership, and communicated her eschatological message (Newport 2006:166–67). In the end, however, Koresh challenged her leadership, and the majority of Branch Davidians sided with him. Lois Roden lost power to Koresh in 1983. According to the Branch Davidians, “the Spirit of Prophecy” abandoned her and she thereby lost the spiritual basis for her authority (Pitts 2014).

After David Koresh [Image at right] led the majority of the Branch Davidians away from Mount Carmel in 1984, Lois Roden was left to live there while her son George took control of the property. She died on November 10, 1986 at age seventy, and her body was transported to Israel for burial. George Roden lost control of the Mount Carmel property to Koresh’s Branch Davidians in 1988 while George was imprisoned for threatening a judge. He subsequently killed a man and spent the rest of his years in a state mental hospital.

Ten years after Lois Roden lost her leadership to David Koresh, the Branch Davidian movement faced its ultimate crisis. In conflicts with federal law enforcement agents in 1993, the Branch Davidians’ home ultimately burned to the ground in a fire that killed seventy-six members, including children, almost destroying the Branch Davidians as a religious movement. However, a small remnant remains.

Lois Roden exercised a powerful influence in shaping the work of Ben Roden, the prophet who preceded her, and also David Koresh, the prophet who succeeded her. Moreover, she led the Branch Davidians to embrace new views during her own tenure as their prophet. She was both a product of her own time and a creative and resourceful American religious leader who made important contributions to the Branch Davidian tradition.

IMAGES

Image #1: Photograph of Lois Roden.

Image #2: Photograph of Benjamin Roden, husband of Lois Roden.

Image #3: Photograph of the front page of SHEkinah, the periodical through which Lois Roden published her spiritual discoveries.

Image #4: Photograph of Victor Houteff.

Image #5: Photograph of George Roden, Lois Roden’s son.

Image #6: Photograph of Vernon Howell/David Koresh, who succeeded Lois Roden as leader of the Branch Davidians.

REFERENCES

Bonokoski, Mark. 1981. “Our Mother Who Art in Heaven.” SHEkinah, December.

Bryan, Paul. 1980. “An Interview with Lois Roden.” The Paul Bryan Talk Show. WFAA, Dallas, Texas. November 4. Reprinted in SHEkinah, December 1980.

Bull, Malcolm, and Keith Lockhart. 2007. Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-Day Adventism and the American Dream. Second Edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Doyle, Clive, with Catherine Wessinger and Matthew D. Witmer. 2012. A Journey to Waco: Autobiography of a Branch Davidian . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Haldeman, Bonnie. 2007. Memories of the Branch Davidians: The Autobiography of David Koresh’s Mother, edited by Catherine Wessinger. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press.

Halliburton, Rita. 1980. “Centexan: Holy Spirit Female.” Waco Tribune Herald, April 26, B-5. Reprinted in SHEkinah, December 1980.

Houteff, Victor T. 1943. The Leviticus of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. Mt. Carmel Center: V. T. Houteff.

Houteff, Victor T. 1930, 1932. The Shepherd’s Rod. Mt. Carmel Center: V. T. Houteff.

Lasovich, Mary. 1981. “Her Crusade to Tell the World the Holy Spirit Is Feminine.” Kingston Ontario Whig Standard, February 28. Reprinted in SHEkinah , April 1981.

Matteson, Catherine. 2004. “Interview #2 by Catherine Wessinger.” Texas Collection. Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

McGee, Dan. n.d. “Davidians and Branch Davidians” (typescript). Texas Collection. Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Newport, Kenneth G. C. 2006. The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History and Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Numbers, Ronald L. and Jonathan M. Butler, eds. 1987. The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Pitts, William L., Jr . 2014. “ SHEkinah : Lois Roden’s Quest for Gender Equality.” Nova Religio 17:37–60.

Pitts, William L., Jr . 2009. “Women Leaders in the Davidian and Branch Davidian Traditions.” Nova Religio 12:50–71.

Pitts, William L., Jr. 1995. “Davidians and Branch Davidians.” Pp. 20-42 in Armageddon in Waco, edited by Stuart A. Wright. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Roden, George, and Lois Roden. 1985-1986. “Legal Documents.” Texas Collection. Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Roden, Lois. 1980. By His Spirit. Bellmead, TX: Living Waters Branch.

Roden, Lois. 1979a. “Eden to Eden.” Taped teaching. Texas Collection. Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Roden, Lois. 1979b. “Numbering the People.” Texas Collection. Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Roden, Lois. 1978. “Christ and the Holy Spirit: Two Turtle Doves.” Bellmead, TX: Living Waters Branch.

Roden, Lois, and Clive Doyle, editors. 1980-1983. SHEkinah. Copies of all issues are housed in the Texas Collection. Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Saether, George William. 1977. “Oral Memoirs.” Institute for Oral History. Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines. 1988. Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Wessinger, Catherine. 2013. “Branch Davidians (1981-2006).” World Religions and Spirituality Project. Accessed from http://wrldrels.org/profiles/BranchDavidians.htm on 10 July 2016.

White, Ellen. 1888. The Great Controversy. Battle Creek, Michigan: James White.

Post Date:
11 July 2016

Share

Olga Park

OLGA PARK TIMELINE

1891 (February 24):  Olga Park was born Mary Olga Bracewell in Gargrave (North Yorkshire), England.

1910:  Park and her family emigrated to British Columbia, Canada.

1914:  Park began to receive unsolicited psycho-spiritual experiences of the Cosmic Christ and other beings from the life beyond death or “heavenly realms.”

1917 (March 24):  Olga Bracewell married James Fleming Park, a Vancouver banker originally from Glasgow, Scotland, in St. Luke’s Anglican Church, South Vancouver, British Columbia.

1919:  Park gave birth to her son Robert Bruce Park.

1922 (June 4):  Park gave birth to James Samuel Park who died a few days later. Olga had an out-of-body experience at the time of Jamie’s birth.

1923–1940:  Olga became active in St. Mary’s Anglican Church in Vancouver in the 1920s, but continued having visions and direct mystical experiences, which she mostly kept to herself. She carefully recorded the details of her interior experiences, and eventually developed a regular morning and evening practice of contemplative prayer.

1941–1963:  In the mid-1940s, Park received the words and music for a mystical communion service she practiced for the rest of her life in the privacy of her home. She corresponded with the Psychical Research Society in England, became the Canadian representative of the Churches’ Fellowship for Psychical Research,
1956–1963 ( Churches’ Fellowship for Psychical and Spiritual Studies n.d.) , and was a member of the Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship (Evanston, Illinois) during the same period.

1960:  Park published Between Time and Eternity (Vantage Press).

1964:  Park moved to a small cottage in Port Moody, British Columbia where she devoted the rest of her life to living as a solitary contemplative, and to the regular practice of the mystical communion ritual given to her by her Teacher from the life beyond death.

1968:  Park self-published Man, The Temple of God .

1969: Park self-published The Book of Admonition and Poetry .

1974: Park self-published An Open Door .

1978: When she broke her ankle, Park moved from the cottage to live with a friend in Vancouver. She continued to receive visits from seekers and learners, sharing her wisdom and contemplative practices with others.

1983: Park transitioned to a care center for the elderly in Vancouver where she received regular visitors.

1985: Park died in December due to advanced age and complications of an undiagnosed stomach condition. Despite intense pain at the end of her life, she passed away peacefully in the presence of a friend.

BIOGRAPHY

Mary Olga Park (who preferred to go by Olga) was born on February 24, 1891 in Gargrave, North Yorkshire, England. Her mother,Ellen Bracewell, was a nanny for the local gentry and her father, Bruce Bracewell, was a tradesman and interior decorator for great manor homes in England. His ancestors had been weavers. Olga loved reading, showed an early talent in music, and possessed a clear and pure soprano voice. She attended various schools in the suburbs of Birmingham until the age of fourteen when she won a scholarship to Aston Pupil Teachers’ Centre for three years, intending to become a teacher.

As a child, Park attended prayer meetings until Darwinian debates broke up her local Wesleyan Methodist church. Some members left because they found a literalist interpretation of the origins of humanity in the book of Genesis incompatible with the more recent findings of geological science. Olga’s cousins were high Anglican, and despite parental disapproval, she sneaked off with her cousins to attend the St. Thomas Anglican Church nearby, drawn by the music, liturgy and sacramentalism.

Then, in 1910, Olga and her family made a life-changing move to Canada. Her father decided to leave behind everything he had built in England in hopes of improving his prospects. The unsolicited psycho-spiritual experiences Park described in her self-published books, Between Time and Eternity (1960) and An Open Door (1972), began a few years later around 1914.

The transition to Vancouver was difficult, as Olga was forced to abandon a promising singing career in England where she had social connections and educational opportunities. She described Vancouver of the early days as a place of pioneer conditions with few cultural amenities.

In 1917, Olga married James Fleming Park, a Vancouver banker who was originally from Glasgow, Scotland. They lived in various residences in Vancouver. Throughout this period, she taught Sunday school in an Anglican church, developing an innovative educational curriculum for youth. There she became friends with the rector at that time, a man of progressive spiritualunderstanding, Charles Sydney McGaffin, who after his death became her spiritual partner working with her from the life beyond death.

In Vancouver during the late 1950s and early 1960s Olga Park was exposed to Theosophical and Spiritualist concepts and practices. She briefly attended Spiritualist meetings and adopted some of their terminology, but chose not to self-identify as a Theosophist or Spiritualist. She saw herself as a Christian mystic on a contemplative path.

In mid-life, she embarked on a detailed study of the New Testament scriptures to discern what the historical Jesus might have actually said and taught versus the interpretation the developing Christian church in the early centuries imposed on his life and teachings. In many ways, she anticipated the scholarship of Jesus historians like John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg and others. Eventually, she left the institutional church because she felt much of what she called the “Churchianity” of her times was not aligned with the actual life and teachings of the Jesus she served based on her visionary awareness.

In 1964, after her husband’s death in 1959, Park moved out of her son’s home to a one-room cottage in Port Moody on the Burrard Inlet east of Vancouver to devote herself to contemplation. During this time until the end of her life, her mystical experiences and visions intensified. After her removal to the cottage, interested seekers of all ages and walks of life who heard of her by word of mouth or picked up her books began to visit. Some became her “learners” and received instruction in the practice of solitary communion she had received as well as the mystical understanding on which it was based.

Olga had numerous extraordinary visions throughout her long life, along with many other varieties of mystical experience. As sherecounted in Between Time and Eternity, these came entirely unsought, and at first she was uncomfortable with them. It was only in her later years that she spoke of them to friends, and compiled her spiritual records for distribution to acquaintances who expressed interest. By this time such experiences were so extensive that she simply accepted their unusualness, and hoped they would be of help to others.

A key thread through all of Olga Park’s visions was that they related to the purpose of life on earth and her sense of the Cosmic Christ’s ongoing role in the spiritual evolution of humanity. While her experiences were received within a Christian context, they addressed spiritual principles that transcend religious and ideological boundaries. In 1972 Park reflected on her rich spiritual life and recounted some of the themes interwoven among these mystical experiences in her book An Open Door .

Olga continued living alone at the cottage until 1978, when at the age of 87 she moved to Vancouver due to frail health after breaking an ankle. There she resided in a friend’s basement suite until January 1983 when she moved to a care center for the elderly in Vancouver. Olga died in December 1985 at the age of ninety-four. Her son, Robert, died a few years later. Her two grandchildren, Jim and Valerie Park, and a great-grandson survive her.

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES

As a mystic wary of institutional church structures and religious organizations, Olga insisted she did not wish to form a “group-structure,” certainly not one involving dues, membership, official status, or doctrine. She emphasized the importance of direct interior experience over uniformity of belief. Park made it clear she did not intend to found a church or religious movement.

Throughout her life, Olga had out of body experiences, visionary awareness, precognition, “third-eye” seeing, and daily communication with the life beyond death. At times she would channel the voice of a friend or contact in the spirit world. She integrated these experiences into her life in a way that sustained a balance between thinking and feeling, and always affirmed the importance of rationality. She taught that growth in divine wisdom and love was the ultimate purpose of such heightened states, not the states themselves.

Park shared freely her interior visions and insights as well as specific pragmatic spiritual practices to any who inquired. She did not believe in proselytizing, and emphasized the importance of responding to genuine inquirers. She taught that establishing a regular time and place for prayer and contemplation would expand consciousness and enable seekers to receive their own direct illumination and guidance.

Over her lifetime Olga had at least a hundred students of diverse ages, demographics, and religious backgrounds who were drawn to her mostly by word of mouth. Most often, she met with her learners one-on-one at her cottage in Port Moody, British Columbia, but frequently in groups of about two to four people at a time. Some were neighbors or friends of neighbors. About ten percent were middle-aged housewives, sometimes accompanied by their husbands. A number of middle-aged men sought her out as well. one a Dutch immigrant to Canada and photographer. Park was also visited by several educators from local colleges and universities in the fields of Religious Studies, English Literature, and Philosophy who heard of her through their students or colleagues. The majority of her students were working-class people from middle-class and some upper-middle-class backgrounds.

At least twenty percent of the people attracted to Olga Park were youth. Her first learner, a young man from England who sought her out after picking up one of her self-published books in an esoteric bookstore in Vancouver, later returned to England to specialize in the sale of organic fertilizers. Many university students interested in spirituality or religion sought her out. In the early 1970s, a number of her learners were hippies, part of the countercultural movement on the West Coast of North America. A striking number of these young people went on to become artists: among them a poet, a potter, a writer on spirituality, and a glassblower. One of her grandson’s friends, who attended to Park’s needs when she broke an ankle, later became a professional nurse. Park also engaged briefly with two teenaged girls who visited regularly for a time in the early 1970s. A young potter and visual artist working with prisoners at a local prison put her in contact with an inquiring inmate with whom she corresponded for a time.

More than half of Olga’s students were nominally Christian or had Christian upbringings, but many had grown disaffected by conventional religion because of its focus on belief and dogma. These were seeking a spiritual practice that enabled them to discover correlations between the contemplative traditions of Christianity and those of other spiritual traditions, particularly those of Asia like Buddhism and Hinduism. Park was open to those who called themselves agnostics, atheists, or those from other religions.

Meetings with Park were seemingly informal, beginning with conversation and tea. However, she would soon begin to share her mystical experiences and visions, offering insights into their meaning and purpose. Then she would receive questions, and dialogue would ensue. After a number of visits, students would often be invited to participate in her weekly communion partaking at her altar in an alcove of the cottage. There she would explain the symbols and meaning of the communion ritual and teach the songs and prayers that led up to and out of what she called “the Holy Silence” (“The Communion Service” n.d.). If they chose, students would then continue practicing the communion ritual in the privacy of their homes. The words, songs, and instructions for her communion service are available on her website (Olga Park: Twentieth-Century Mystic n.d. ).

Olga was devoted to the being who manifested to her early in her adult life as the Cosmic Christ, and felt herself dedicated to the path he had established on earth during his incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth. She saw the Jesus of her visions as still actively at work addressing our emerging planetary crisis. She did not accept the doctrine that it is essential for everyone to accept the Christian Jesus in order to be “saved.” Rather, she saw the Cosmic Christ as a human being who had attained mastery of spiritual principles during his lifetime, and whose life and teachings were in alignment with the principles and teachings of other leaders and founders of world religions. He had attained the status of the Cosmic Christ but was not God incarnate. This Jesus was for her a poet and wisdom teacher, as evidenced by his parables and oral wisdom sayings, and a scientist in the oldest sense of the word “science” as integrated knowing.

She taught that Western materialist science and linear thinking have shut many out from more inclusive, intuitive knowing. The Christ was her supreme teacher, because he had attained mastery of the life forces through many incarnations. Yet she drew on the wisdom of the world’s religions East and West in her interpretation of her visions and of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, noting the interconnections among the various wisdom traditions. She was both grounded in her Christian heritage and inter-spiritual daily. In her later life, Olga communed with presences from the life beyond death and experienced visions
frequently, on almost a or weekly basis. Some of Olga’s most significant visions are described in her own words on a website containing her self-published writings: the story of the psychic vase and its shattering; a viewing of the panorama of religions throughout the ages; an experience of the Cosmic Christ as Osiris in the Great Pyramid of Giza; an out-of-body tour of the Church of Christ of the Future; an account of the Temple of God Consciousness; and her receiving of third-eye vision (“The Communion Service” n.d.).

RITUALS/PRACTICES

In the early 1970s, it was revealed to Olga through a series of visions that she was commissioned to instruct others in the partaking of bread and wine at a home prayer table, which, she suggested, could be located in a niche or corner of one’s room. The purpose of this practice, for both herself and her learners, was to accelerate spiritual growth toward maturity (spiritual integration) and to establish a balance between contemplation and action in one’s daily life. Her students were invited to follow suit by setting up their own prayer tables or dedicated places as convenient and committing themselves to regular times of prayer, meditation, and communion. When they again visited Olga at the cottage they would discuss the insights and possible transformations in their lives that proceeded from their practice.

Olga taught the importance of establishing a special place and time dedicated to prayer and meditation. She emphasized that a person’s psychic and spiritual energies could be easily disrupted by the constant comings and goings of everyday life, and that it was therefore important to build a temple or sacred place within the soul that was at one with Creative Spirit. She saw her prayer table as more of a dining table for communion rather than an altar or place of sacrifice, as a sacred space where partakers receive healing, comfort, and guidance, surrender their daily concerns to a higher power, and offer prayers for others.

In addition to her practice of morning and evening prayer, Olga developed a communion service that she said was given to her by her Teacher and guide in the other life whom she associated with the author (or source) for the accounts in the Gospel of John. She taught her practice to any of her students who requested to participate at the cottage in groups of no more than two or three. Many of them then decided to continue practicing it in their own homes. For a time, some of the students practiced communion at home with one other student, but most of them practiced in solitude. They did not form an established group apart from Park during her lifetime or after her death, but some met together to discuss her ideas, practices, and her non-literal approaches to the Bible.

Olga rejected the doctrine that Jesus’ execution by the Romans was a sacrifice God required of his “only Son” in order to forgive humankind for their sins. In Olga’s ritual, the bread symbolizes the “Word of life revealed from heaven,” and the wine “the love of Christ and the fellowship of heaven.” The service consisted of an interweaving of hymns and scriptures that led up to and out of the Holy Silence. The purpose of the service was to activate higher levels of consciousness within each participant. She taught that this Holy Silence was at the center of everyone’s being, and was the generative source of all life where we are interconnected and one.

Additionally, she taught that the purpose of entering the Silence was to cultivate the “hearing of the Voice.” This inner hearing was not a ringing in the ear by a voice perceived as external from the self, but an emergence of wisdom-knowing from the innermost core of each person. She taught one could receive guidance from the innermost core of oneself that is simultaneously the core or hidden center of the cosmos. Her teaching was based on the sense that the microcosm or small order of things is essentially one with the cosmic order or larger order of things. Therefore, the hearing of the Voice was for her not a matter of external guidance bestowed by a God outside the world or the individual self, but a Presence indwelling each person and alive within all things.

LEADERSHIP

As a spiritual leader, Olga encouraged her students to trust their own interior guidance. One of her constant expressions was, “Don’t take my word for it. Test it out for yourself to see if it works.”

She encouraged the full development of the individuality of each of her learners. Yet those close to her believed she spoke with such authenticity on the intensity and quality of her visions that it was evident she lived in many dimensions at once, negotiating them with grace. Many of her students noticed that when they arrived at the cottage, Park would often begin talking insightfully about an issue or question with which they had been struggling; yet she insisted she did not read minds but was simply “attuned from within” to what was going on with each person.

She often compared what she called spiritual “at-one-ment” or “attunement” to being linked up to a specific bandwidth as received on a radio. She also taught that “all is by mediation,” and saw herself as one who had the capacity to mediate between one dimension and another. During some of her early out-of-body experiences she had been taken by her guide in the afterlife (the figure she called her Teacher) to assist others in their transition from life on earth to the life beyond death.

Olga’s continuous direct encounters with beings and teachers from the life beyond death convinced her that consciousness survives death. Much of her teaching focused on how to awaken and develop what she called “a three-fold consciousness,” a balance of body, soul (including mind and emotions), and spirit. Her students often commented that mere association with Olga stimulated visionary or mystical awareness in them.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Olga Park’s greatest challenge, her call to a solitary, contemplative life, involved some degree of loneliness in the early years. Feeling out of tune with the materialist, linear thinking of her era (the assumption that what we can see and measure empirically is the entirety of reality) she nevertheless continued to keep careful records of her interior experiences.

Her preference to work with small groups of people drawn to her and her desire to step outside large institutional structures meant that she would not lead a movement. However, her hidden life, and her teachings on the importance of a regular practice of prayer and praise, had profound repercussions in the lives of many. Her papers and writings are now being collected in the archives at the University of Manitoba. She lived by Jesus’ teaching that a teacher scatters seed, unaware of the hidden repercussions of acts that at first seem small.

Olga’s decision not to promote herself as the leader of a movement flowed out of a considered understanding that the insights and teachings of the original founders of many religions have often been diminished or even perverted by the institutional structures that grew up around them. She argued that when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the creeds and doctrines of the church often misrepresented the life and teachings of Jesus, the Jewish mystical teacher. She felt that Jesus’ legacy would not have necessarily died without the church, but that it could have been carried on through smaller, more diverse groups of practitioners. Therefore, her legacy is not merely based on her own personal charisma, but on her teaching about the value of a regular practice of contemplation and communion, which can be carried out in one’s home or ordinary circumstances by individuals and small groups. Her teaching on how to open to the presence of the Cosmic Christ and to come to embody this Christ-consciousness is expressed in her extensive writings, many of which have not yet been published at this time.

Olga’s teachings remain clearly within the Christian mystical streams. Because her concepts and practices fell within the more esoteric side of Christianity, she was not fully understood during her lifetime. However, she was both a mystic and an activist, as she served as the Canadian representative for the Churches’ Fellowship for Psychic and Spiritual Research when she was in her sixties, and attempted to open discussion in liberal Christian churches in Vancouver about life beyond death. She felt her path paralleled that of the Quakers who focus on the awakening of the inner light in each individual rather than relying on a priesthood or spiritual hierarchy.

Olga Park lived and taught what now might be called an evolutionary spirituality, a sense that human consciousness evolves within a larger, sustaining cosmic consciousness. She noted that evolving beyond egotism and self-centeredness individually and collectively begins and ends with humility, a desire to serve something greater than our narrowly conceived selves. Olga’s God or Creative Spirit was not a punitive or patriarchal Being managing the world from outside or beyond, but a loving Presence, both immanent and transcendent, personal and transpersonal, who uses our mistakes and fragilities to create newness, truth, and beauty. Divine spirit was for her that in which “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

REFERENCES

Buckwold, Jarad. 2013. Olga Park: An Inventory of Her Records at the University of Manitoba Archives & Special Collections. Accessed from http://umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/archives/collections/complete_holdings/ead/html/Olga-Park_2011.shtml#a14.

Churches’ Fellowship for Psychical and Spiritual Studies. n.d. Accessed from http://www.churchesfellowship.co.uk/ on 15 December 2015.

Longhurst, Brian. 2012. Seek Ye First the Kingdom: One Man’s Journey with the Living Jesus. Portland: Six Degrees Publishing Group.

McCaslin, Susan. 2014. Into the Mystic: My Years with Olga. Toronto: Inanna Publications.

Olga Park: Twentieth-Century Mystic. n.d. (Website created by Susan McCaslin containing Olga Park’s self-published writings). Accessed from http://olgapark.weebly.com/ on 16 June 2017.

Park, Olga Mary Bracewell. 1960. Between Time and Eternity. New York: Vantage Press. Accessed from http://olgapark.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/3/102360766/between_time_and_eternity.pdf  on 16 June 2017.

Park, Olga. 1968. Man, the Temple of God. Accessed from http://olgapark.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/3/102360766/man_the_temple_of_god.pdf on 16 June 2017.

Park, Olga. 1969. The Book of Admonition and Poetry. Accessed from http://olgapark.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/3/102360766/book_of_admonitions_and_poetry.pdf on 16 June 2017.

Park, Olga. 1974. An Open Door. Accessed from http://olgapark.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/3/102360766/an_open_door.pdf on 16 June 2017.

Todd, Douglas. 2015. “A Journey into Parapsychology,” September 10. The Search. Online blog with the Vancouver Sun . Accessed from http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2015/09/10/a-vancouver-womans-journey-into-parapsychology/ on 18 December 2015.

SUPPLEMENTARY RESOURCES

Mary Olga Park fonds. University of British Columbia Library Rare Books and Special Collections. Available at http://rbscarchives.library.ubc.ca/index.php/mary-olga-park-fonds.

Mary Olga Park fonds. University of British Columbia Library Rare Books and Special Collections. Collection Description. Available at http://rbscarchives.library.ubc.ca/downloads/mary-olga-park-fonds.pdf

Post Date:
18 December 2015

Share

Ellen Gould Harmon White

ELLEN GOULD HARMON WHITE TIMELINE

1827 (November 26):  Ellen Gould Harmon was born, with identical twin Elizabeth, in Gorham, Maine.

1840 (March):  Ellen Harmon first heard William Miller lecture in Portland, Maine.

1842 (June 26):  Ellen was baptized into her family’s Chestnut Street Methodist Church.

1843 (February–August):  Five committees were appointed in the Chestnut Street Methodist Church to deal with the Harmons after Ellen refused to stop testifying that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844.

1844 (October 22):  Ellen Harmon and other Millerites were greatly disappointed when their millennial expectations failed.

1844–1845 (Winter):  Ellen experienced waking visions, and traveled to share her visions with scattered bands of disappointed Millerites.

1846 (August 30):  Ellen married James Springer White.

1847–1860:  Ellen White gave birth to four sons, only two of whom survived to adulthood, James Edson (1849–1928) and William (Willie) Clarence (1854–1937). Both John Herbert (September 20, 1860-December 14, 1860) and Henry Nichols ( August 26, 1847-December 8, 1863) died before reaching adulthood.

1848 (Autumn):  Ellen White experienced the first of many visions on health.

1848 (November 17–19):  Ellen White had a vision instructing James to commence printing “a little paper.” Adventist Publishing later grew from the resulting periodical, originally called The Present Truth.

1851 (July):  Ellen published A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White, the first of twenty-six books she would publish during her lifetime.

1863:  The Seventh-day Adventist Church was officially organized.

1876 (August):  Ellen White delivered a speech on temperance in Massachusetts to a crowd of 20,000, the largest she would address in her lifetime.

1881 (August 6):  James White died.

1887:  The General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted to give Ellen White ordination credentials.

1895:  Ellen White called for Adventist women to be “set apart by the laying on of hands” to ministerial work.

1915 (July 16):  Ellen Gould Harmon White died at her home, Elmshaven, near St. Helena, California.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

Ellen Gould Harmon and her identical twin Elizabeth were born the last of eight children to Robert Harmon and Eunice Gould Harmon in Gorham, Maine. When Ellen was a few years old her family moved to Portland, Maine, where her father worked as a hatmaker, and the family began to attend the Chestnut Street Methodist Church. Ellen’s parents were deeply religious, and as she grew up she participated with her mother in the Methodist “shout” tradition, crying out, singing, and participating in worship as moved by the Holy Spirit.

In her later writings, Ellen [Image at right] describes two events that occurred when she was about age nine as formative. In 1836, she found a scrap of paper “containing an account of a man in England who was preaching that the Earth would be consumed in about thirty years” (White 1915:21). She would later recount that she was so “seized with terror” after reading the paper that she “could scarcely sleep for several nights, and prayed continually to be ready when Jesus came” (White 1915:22). In December of the same year, she was hit in the face by a stone thrown by a schoolmate “angry at some trifle” and was so badly injured that she “lay in a stupor for three weeks” (White 1915:17, 18). She was a shy, intense, and spiritual child, and these two events focused her attention on the destiny of her soul, especially as her injuries forced the formerly strong student to withdraw from school and spend her days in bed shaping crowns for her father’s hat-making business.

Particularly after these events, Ellen experienced bouts of “despair” and “mental anguish” as she sought assurance of her salvation in the face of her burgeoning belief in the soon-coming advent of Jesus Christ, and her trepidation at Methodist ministers’ descriptions of a “horrifying” “eternally burning hell” (White 1915:21, 29). In March 1840, Ellen heard lectures by William Miller (1782-1849) in Portland, Maine. Bible study had led Miller to conclude that Christ would return in 1843, though he and his followers eventually settled on October 22, 1844 as the anticipated date of the second coming. Ellen accepted Miller’s prediction, and, after a long spiritual search, felt the assurance of God’s love at a Methodist camp meeting in Buxton, Maine in September 1841. She was baptized into the Chestnut Street Methodist Church in Casco Bay on June 26, 1842. Still, her anxiety returned and intensified as she became focused on Millerite expectations. After hearing Miller’s second series of Portland lectures in June 1842, Ellen experienced religious dreams and, once again, the assurance of salvation, and was “struck down” by the “wondrous power of God” (White 1915:38).

By early 1843, as the date of the expected advent neared, Ellen felt called to pray and testify publically “all over Portland,” which she did. Between February and June 1843, at least in part in response to Ellen’s public support for Millerite millennial predictions, her congregation appointed a series of five committees to deal with the Harmon family. Ellen refused to back down from her conviction that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844, and the Harmons were expelled from their congregation in August 1843.

When Christ failed to return to the Earth on October 22, Millerites, along with Ellen, were deeply disappointed. Leaders of the movement, including William Miller and Joshua Himes (1805-1895), reorganized, abandoned date setting, and rejected the ecstatic worship style that had prevailed in the movement in the months preceding the Great Disappointment. Nonetheless, some believers, dubbed radicals by more moderate Millerites, continued to gather in small groups to participate in emotionally charged worship (Taves 2014:38–39). Worshiping in one of these gatherings with five other women in December 1845, Ellen experienced a vision in which she saw that something important had occurred on October 22, 1844: Christ had entered the heavenly sanctuary and commenced the final work of judging souls, and he would return to Earth as soon as that work was complete (White 1915:64–65). Her vision, which laid out what would come to be called the investigative judgment and sanctuary doctrine, explained Christ’s failure to return in 1844 and bolstered continued hope in his imminent coming.

Ellen Harmon traveled among bands of former Millerites in the winter and spring 1845 sharing her vision. She was not the only Portland-area visionary: Adventist historian Frederick Hoyt identified newspaper accounts of five others in and around Portland who saw visions after October 1844 (Taves 2014:40). Though in her later written accounts Ellen would portray herself as calmly receiving visions (an image perpetuated in official Adventist renditions of the prophet since before her death) recently uncovered historical documents indicate that in her early prophetic experiences she participated in “noisy” emotional worship that lacked “order or regularity” (Numbers 2008:331). Court testimony from the 1845 trial of Israel Dammon on charges of vagrancy and distrurbing the peace described radical adventist worshipers crawling on the floor, hugging and kissing one another, “[losing] their strength and fall[ing] to the floor,” and “wash[ing] each other’s feet” (Numbers 2008:334, 338). Witnesses identified the “one that they call Imitation of Christ,” Ellen, lying on the floor “in a trance,” occasionally “point[ing] to someone,” and relaying messages to them, “which she said w[ere] from the Lord” (Numbers 2008:338, 330, 334, 336). During this period Ellen met James Springer White (1821-1881), a former Christian Connection minister turned Millerite, who joined in this emotional worship. He accepted her visions, and accompanied her in her travels.

When rumors of their unchaperoned travels began to circulate, James and Ellen married, [Image at right] thereby uniting the two figures who would prove most instrumental in forming Seventh-day Adventism. After marrying, Ellen and James had four sons, who they often left in others’ care for weeks at a time as they traveled around the Northeast during the 1850s to provide leadership and guidance to dispersed bands of adventists. In the late 1840s, Ellen and James became acquainted with Joseph Bates (1792-1872), a former British navy captain, revivalist minister, abolitionist, and advocate of temperance and health reform. Each of the three contributed to the beliefs that would define Seventh-day Adventism, especially belief in the sanctuary doctrine, the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, the impending advent, vegetarianism, and the seventh-day Sabbath. Before formal organization, Ellen’s visions settled debates among male adventist leaders regarding theology, belief, and practice, so that by 1863, when Seventh-day Adventism was officially organized, Ellen’s visions had confirmed core Adventist beliefs and practices.

In November 1848, Ellen Harmon White proclaimed the “duty of the brethren to publish the light,” and instructed her husband James that he “must begin to print a little paper and send it out to the people” (White 1915:125). Visions relaying health, education, and mission followed. Ellen experienced numerous bouts of poor health in her lifetime, James’ health often suffered from overwork, and two of the couples’ four sons died. So it is no surprise the she was fascinated by health. White’s message of health is demonstrably similar to ideas advocated by other nineteenth-century health reformers (Numbers 2008:chapter three). Her originality was less in the specifics of her messages of health, education, or mission, than in her conceptualization of, and ability to motivate Adventists to create interdependent systems of religious institutions directed toward serving the goals of Seventh-day Adventism. Adventists were, according to White, to be educated and religiously socialized in Adventist schools where they could prepare for professional work in Adventist institutions. Adventists were to adhere to their health message, but also, as their aptitudes allowed, be trained as physicians to minister through healing, or as ministers, educators, literature evangelists, secretaries, administrators, editors, or in a variety of other professions to work in the service of Adventism.

As White’s visions found increased acceptance, she gained confidence as a prophetic speaker and writer. Ellen and James traveled extensively among Adventists, and James was Ellen’s supporter and sometimes-collaborator in speaking and publishing. Even before Adventism’s official organization, the couple “developed a pattern” in public speaking: “James would preach a closely reasoned, text based message during the morning sermon hour, and Ellen would conduct a more emotive service in the afternoon” (Aamodt 2014:113). Ellen was also a prolific author, publishing twenty-six books, thousands of periodical articles, and numerous pamphlets in her lifetime. She relied on “literary assistants” to help her prepare work for publication, and James often helped her to edit her work. His extensive contributions took a toll, and James’ health declined in the 1870s. Ellen increasingly traveled without him, and spoke to audiences, including general audiences of thousands, about health, temperance, and other topics. Her favorite son, W. C. (Willie), accompanied her when James’ illness prevented travel, and even more after James White died in 1881.

Ellen’s leadership style became more sedate as she aged. She had had religious dreams as a girl before she experienced religious trances or waking visions, and though religious dreams replaced Ellen’s waking visions by the 1870s, she continued to play an instrumental role in shaping Adventism. She wrote long, and sometimes highly critical, letters to church leaders, often addressed meetings of the General Conference, and published extensively. Ellen spent nine years during the 1890s in Australia, and influenced the movement significantly after her return to America, in part by encouraging the election of A. G. Daniels (1858-1935), her protégé and president of the Australian Union Conference, as president of the General Conference in 1901. At the same gathering she promoted a major denominational reorganization that, though highly controversial, passed and was successfully implemented. She delivered eleven addresses during the last General Conference session that she was able to attend in 1909, and thereafter confined herself increasingly to her home, Elmshaven, near St. Helena, California, where she died in 1915.

DOCTRINES/BELIEFS

Ellen White was indelibly shaped by the Methodism of her childhood, and Seventh-day Adventism incorporated beliefs in a literal creation, the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, the second coming, resurrection of the dead, and judgment. In what Adventists regard as Ellen White’s first vision, she saw that on October 22, 1844 Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary and commenced the second and last phase of his atoning work for humans. At the close of this work, Christ would return. White’s explanation of the delayed advent helped to establish the investigative judgment and sanctuary doctrine in Adventist theology of atonement, as well as to define the advent as near.

In addition to the investigative judgment and sanctuary doctrine, Ellen White’s explanation of the Great Controversy [Image at right] anchors Adventist theology. Her articulation of the Great Controversy posits a battle between good and evil that began in heaven, and frames all of life on Earth. The controversy began when Satan, a created being, used his freedom to rebel against God, and some angels followed him. After God created the Earth in six days, Satan introduced sin to Earth, leading Adam and Eve astray. God’s perfection in humans and creation was damaged, culminating eventually in the destruction of creation in a universal flood. Christ was God incarnate, and God provides angels, the Holy Spirit, prophets, the Bible, and the Spirit of Prophecy to guide people toward salvation, and the ultimate victory of good.

The three angels of Revelation 14 capture the distinguishing aspects of Seventh-day Adventism. Guided by Ellen White’s visions, early Adventists interpreted the decades prior to, and culminating in, Miller’s message of the soon-coming advent as fulfilling the first angel’s message. The second angel’s message was fulfilled when Millerites came out of “Babylon,” their churches, to join the Millerite movement in the summer of 1844. The third angel’s message was realized as believers accepted and adhered to the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath.

Interpretation of the three angels’ messages evolved over time as it became necessary to admit both converts and children of believers to the movement. Though Ellen and James White initially resisted the idea that salvation was available to those who were not Millerites on October 22, 1844, they eventually accepted that belief. The reconciliation of the still-soon-coming advent with emphasis on October 22, 1844 as a critical date allowed Adventism to embrace its Millerite beginnings and attract new converts. In addition to delineating Adventist theology, Ellen White’s visions promoted practices, such as worshiping on the seventh-day and same-sex foot washing, which helped to define the religion.

As time passed, Ellen White’s publishing on health, education, mission, and humanitarianism provided Adventists focus and work to hasten Christ’s return. White’s health message incorporated aspects of the nineteenth-century health reform movement, including abstinence from alcohol, meat, and tobacco, and emphasis on exercise, fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables. White advocated dress reform for Adventist women after seeing the bloomer costume during a stay at Our Home on the Hill, a New York sanitarium. She developed her own pattern, which included pants and a skirt that fell lower on the boot, and wore it herself, but ceased promoting dress reform when Adventists resisted women wearing pants. She also encouraged Adventists to study medicine, and she selected an important protégée, John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943), to head the first Adventist sanitarium, the Western Health Reform Institute (called the Battle Creek sanitarium), after he completed his training. Adventism lost the Battle Creek sanitarium when Kellogg split with Adventism after his 1903 publication of The Living Temple. Nonetheless, Ellen White contributed to the development of numerous other Adventist institutions, including additional sanitariums, schools and colleges, and publishing houses.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Even before their official organization into a denomination, Adventists accepted the seventh-day, Saturday, as the Sabbath. Ellen’s visions settled disputes about when the Sabbath began (at sundown Friday) and when it ended (at sunset on Saturday). In its early decades, Adventists were dispersed, and so itinerant ministers, often in married ministerial teams, traveled to serve the faithful. After organization, Adventists commenced erecting church buildings, in which worship was held. Adventist worship included time during which Adventists washed the feet of others of the same sex. Baptism was by immersion after a public confession of faith. Ellen White encouraged Adventists to marry only after careful consideration, forbade marriage to non-Adventists, and wrote that “adultery alone can break the marriage tie” (Ellen G. White Estate n.d.). Outside of worship, White encouraged believers to dress modestly, live simply, and refrain from worldly amusements such as reading fiction or attending the theater.

LEADERSHIP

Ellen White called herself “God’s messenger” rather than a prophet, and she insisted that the Bible was “authoritative, infallible revelation.” The Bible, though, did not “rende[r] needless the continued presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit” (White 1911:vii). Her visions, the “lesser light,” illuminated the truth of the Bible.

Ellen White never held certified office. After the church was formally established, she received a ministerial stipend. She insisted that she was ordained by God, and that, for her, ordination by men was unnecessary. The General Conference nonetheless voted to give her ordination credentials beginning in 1887.

White took positions and provided counsel on things as mundane as the site of a new building, and as significant as General Conference debates over theology. Despite her lack of official standing, no other leader influenced Adventism as much. In addition to her voluminous books and pamphlets, she wrote thousands of pages of correspondence to Adventists, some of which were collected in her “testimonies” (Sharrock 2014:52). She provided pointed criticism and direction in these letters, which often detailed specific failings of individuals or churches.

White also wrote extensively to church presidents, counseling and sometimes reprimanding them. In some cases, she sent harshly critical letters that directed the recipient, a church president, to read aloud to colleagues (Valentine 2011:81). White also provided encouragement in her letters, especially when leaders followed her counsel. In addition, she attended regularly meetings of the General Conference, sometimes as a voting delegate, and she addressed the General Conference numerous times. At meetings of the General Conference, her view often prevailed, as it did in 1909, when she embraced reorganization of the General Conference amid controversy over the question.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Ellen White was a socially awkward young woman who was often in poor health, and early in her prophetic career the authenticity of her visions was challenged. James White worked, especially in his role as editor of the Review and Herald , to distinguish Ellen from the “fanaticism, accompanied by false visions and exercises” of other visionaries in and around Portland, Maine in the wake of the Great Disappointment (White 1851). He also encouraged onlookers to subject her to physical tests while in vision, such as covering her nose and mouth.

Though James was generally Ellen’s most effective advocate, he ceased publishing her visions in 1851 in response to what was dubbed the “shut-door” controversy. Before 1851 Ellen and some other believers, including James, had advanced the idea that the door to salvation closed on October 22, 1844, and that those who had not accepted Miller’s message by that date could not be saved. As time continued, however, and as both potential converts and children born to believers sought salvation through the movement, that position became less tenable. By 1851, Ellen acknowledged that the door to salvation remained open, and James, frustrated by critics of the prophet, stopped publishing her visions in the Review . Ellen’s visions became infrequent, resuming only in 1855 after a group of church leaders criticized James’ decision, and replaced him as editor of the Review .

Ellen was also criticized as a female religious leader by some inside and outside the movement who cited the Pauline epistles and other texts as evidence that women should not preach or lead. The early Review and Herald responded to these criticisms. A number of Adventist pioneers, including Joseph H. Waggoner and J. N. Andrews (1829-1883), wrote Review and Herald articles defending women’s right to preach, speak publically, and minister. Ellen White left defense of her role to her husband and other male leaders, but did advocate for women to serve in ministry and other leadership roles. By the late 1860s, as Adventism developed a route to ordination, women participated, and received ministerial licenses. Lulu Wightman, Hattie Enoch, Ellen Lane, Jessie Weiss Curtis, and other women were licensed and served successfully in ministry. The question of women’s ordination was presented for debate at the 1881 General Conference session. Ellen, mourning James’s recent death, was not in attendance, however, and the resolution was tabled and never voted on.

IMAGES

Image #1: Photograph of movement founder Ellen Gould Harmon White. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Image #2: Photograph of James and Ellen Gould Harmon White. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Image #3: Drawing of the turmoil accompanying the Great Controversy. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

REFERENCES

Aamodt, Terrie Dopp. 2014. “Speaker.” Pp. 110-125 In Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, edited by Terrie Dopp Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellen G. White Estate. n.d. “Ellen G. White Counsels Relating to Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage.” Accessed from http://ellenwhite.org/sites/ellenwhite.org/files/books/325/325.pdf on 15 March 2016.

Numbers, Ronald L. 2008. Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White, Third Edition. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans.

Sharrock, Graeme. 2014. “Testimonies.” Pp. 52-73 in Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, edited by Terrie Dopp Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Taves, Ann. 2014. “Visions.” Pp. 30-51 in Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, edited by Terrie Dopp Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Valentine, Gilbert M. 2011. The Prophet and the Presidents. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association.

White, Ellen Gould. 1915. Life Sketches of Ellen G. White. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association.

White, Ellen G. 1911. The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan. Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

White, Ellen. 1895. “The Duty of the Minister and the People.” The Review and Herald, July 9. Accessed from http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Periodical&bookCode=RH&lang=en&year=1895&month=July&day=9 on 13 January, 2016.

White, James. 1851. “Preface.” First Edition of Experience and Views, by Ellen G. White, v–vi. Accessed from http://www.gilead.net/egw/books2/earlywritings/ewpreface1.htm on 3 March 2016.

Post Date:
21 April 2016

Share

Alma White

ALMA WHITE TIMELINE

1862 (June 16):  Mollie Alma Bridwell was born in Lewis County, Kentucky.

1878:  Mollie Alma Bridwell experienced conversion at a Methodist revival service conducted by William B. Godbey.

1887 (December 21):  Mollie Alma Bridwell married Kent White in Denver.

1893 (March 6):  Alma White experienced sanctification after a prolonged quest.

1896 (July 7):  Alma White established her first independent mission in Denver.

1901:  Alma White traveled to Chicago to attend the General Holiness Assembly as well as a meeting sponsored by the Metropolitan Church Association.

1901 (December 29):  Alma White founded the Pentecostal Union, later known as the Pillar of Fire, in Denver.

1902 (March 16):  Alma White was ordained along with another woman and three men as clergy in the Pentecostal Union.

1904 (December 1):  Alma White began a revival in London, England which lasted three months.

1908:  Alma White transferred church headquarters from Denver to Zarephath, New Jersey.

1909 (August 11):  Kent separated from Alma, and they were never reconciled.

1918 (September 1):  Alma White was consecrated by the Pentecostal Union as the first woman bishop in the United States and the Pentecostal Union adopted its church discipline.

1919:  The Pentecostal Union officially became the Pillar of Fire.

1927:  Pillar of Fire purchased KPOF radio station in Denver.

1931:  Pillar of Fire purchased WAWZ radio station in New Jersey.

1937 (October 31):  Alma Temple in Denver was dedicated.

1946 (June 26):  Alma White died at Zarephath, New Jersey.

FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY

Mollie Alma Bridwell was one of eleven children born to William and Mary Ann Bridwell on June 16, 1862. She reported an unhappy childhood because she believed her parents had hoped for another boy. She also was compared unfavorably to her sisters who were said to be prettier and smarter.

After earning her teaching certificate and teaching locally for a short time, Mollie Alma Bridwell moved to Montana to teach in 1882 at the invitation of an aunt. After securing an advanced teaching certificate back in Kentucky, she taught in Utah and again inMontana before moving to Denver. On December 21, 1887 she married Kent White, an aspiring Methodist minister whom she had met in Montana in 1883. After completing his studies at University of Denver, he was ordained in 1889.

Mollie Alma White had experienced conversion as a teenager in Kentucky under the preaching of the well-known evangelist William B. Godbey (1833–1920). Later, she understood that sanctification or holiness was a subsequent religious experience that was to be sought following conversion. Holiness was a Methodist doctrine that became the hallmark of the Wesleyan/Holiness movement, which consisted of organizations and denominations that emerged during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Despite her prolonged quest, White initially felt that sanctification eluded her. It was not until she followed the teaching of Phoebe Palmer (1807–1874), completely consecrating her life to Christ and claiming the experience by faith, that she was able to claim sanctification on March 18, 1893.

Mollie Alma White believed that sanctification resulted not only in purity of heart by removing inbred sin but that it conferred power for ministry. She called it “the great event of my life, fitting me for the preaching of the gospel” (Alma White 1939:62). The birth of two sons did not deter her from fulfilling her calling to preach. She began preaching later in 1893, first on Kent’s Methodist circuit, and soon branched out by conducting independent revival meetings initially in Colorado and then throughout the West. The doctrine of sanctification became a prominent sermon topic for her.

Dropping her first name, Alma White established her first independent mission in Denver on July 7, 1896. Within two years, she was supervising four other missions in Colorado and Wyoming. On February 1, 1899 she started a religious training school inDenver for her followers. Alma White purchased the property and supervised construction of the building, which seated 1,000 and had thirty-four bedrooms. Adopting the pattern of other Wesleyan/Holiness groups, she founded her own church, the Pentecostal Union on December 29, 1901 with fifty charter members. In 1902 Alma White participated in services in New England with the Burning Bush, the popular name of the Metropolitan Church Association, whose leaders she had met in Chicago the prior year. They cooperated in other services in Illinois, Iowa, California, Texas and London until they parted ways in a dispute over land in 1905. Alma White persevered, securing property in New Jersey. There, she established Zarephath, which replaced Denver as church headquarters in 1908.

Alma White had been ordained in 1902 in the Pentecostal Union. The possibility of ordination had been one reason for leaving Methodism. This represented a major milestone because the Methodist Episcopal Church did not ordain women at the time and refused to grant women full ordination rights until 1956. The Pentecostal Union recognized her leadership by consecrating her as bishop on September 1, 1918, making her the first woman bishop in the United States. At this time, the church adopted its book of discipline, which regulated church life. While the name Pillar of Fire was used as early as 1904 with the publication of Pillar of Fire magazine, the church did not officially change its name to Pillar of Fire until 1919.

Alma White continued to purchase properties for branches throughout the country. She also bought a 100-room estate inLondon. Arthur White (1889-1981), Alma’s son, stated in 1948, “some 50 branches of the society were organized” (Arthur White 1939:391). An unpublished list itemized 82 properties including buildings and lots purchased between 1902 and 1946. There were approximately 5,000 members at the church’s height. By 1940 the church sponsored eighteen private Christian schools throughout the United States. The outreach of Pillar of Fire extended to the acquisition of radio stations in Denver and New Jersey. Publications were also an important aspect of the church’s outreach. White wrote more than thirty-five books and edited six magazines. She played an active role in the leadership of the church, preaching until shortly before her death on June 26, 1946. Her son Arthur led the church until 1978 when his daughter, Arlene White Lawrence (1916–1990), took over, serving as president and general superintendent until 1984.

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES

While Alma White rejected the Methodist Episcopal Church, she maintained allegiance to the doctrines she identified as old-fashioned Methodism. Prominent among these was the belief in sanctification or holiness, also known as the second work of grace. John Wesley (1703–1791), the founder of Methodism, had promoted the experience as occurring after conversion, the first work of grace, which was when seekers confessed their sins and accepted Christ’s forgiveness. Wesley taught that holiness resulted in death to sin and a life of love modeled after Christ. Phoebe Palmer popularized the doctrine in the United States through her writings and preaching. Alma White adopted Palmer’s understanding of the means of achieving holiness even though she did not acknowledge this indebtedness. This theology places the Pillar of Fire in the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition.

Alma White rejected modernist theology as did fundamentalists. However, she did not share the fundamentalist doctrines of predestination, inerrancy or biblical prophecy with respect to end times. Another difference from the fundamentalists, illustrated by her view of conversion and sanctification, was that experience took priority over reason as a source of theology.

Alma White espoused an anti-worldly posture toward the surrounding society. Despite her emphasis on separation from the world, she contributed a vitriolic voice to the anti-Catholic movement, understanding her nativism as an expression of patriotism. She formed an unholy alliance with the Ku Klux Klan, primarily to further her agenda of promoting “100% Americanism.” One of her magazines, Good Citizen, was dedicated to “exposing political Romanism [Catholicism] in its efforts to gain the ascendancy in the United States” (White 1935-1943 3:293).

Alma White also departed from her commitment to separation from the world by promoting feminism, not only in the church butalso in the public arena. She promoted a standard definition of feminism: “In every sphere of life, whether social, political, or religious, there must be equality between the sexes” (“A Woman Bishop” 1922). Like other Christian feminists, she maintained that Jesus was “the great emancipator of the female sex.” Believing women’s equality was God’s will, she listed the religious and political equality of the sexes as a part of the Pillar of Fire creed (White 1935-1943 5:229). She documented a biblical precedent for her views, quoting from the story of Pentecost (Acts 2), Paul’s statement of equality in Galatians 3:28, and offering a litany of women in the Bible who operated outside the patriarchal women’s sphere. She supported suffrage for women. Pillar of Fire became the first religious group and one of the first organizations to endorse the Equal Rights Amendment when it was introduced by the National Woman’s Party in 1923. Alma White established the magazine Woman’s Chains in 1924 as a forum for her feminist message.

RITUALS/PRACTICES

Alma White’s anti-worldly position manifested itself most notably in Zarephath, which became a self-sustaining community. Pillar of Fire branches also provided housing for its workers. They operated on “the faith line” by relying on unsolicited donations to support their work rather than seeking money to pay their bills. Separation extended to requiring followers to give up secular employment and work solely for the church. Pillar of Fire presses published their own books and magazines, which members sold door to door.

Worship was not confined to church buildings. Alma White and her followers conducted tent meetings and open-air street meetings. They engaged in parades to attract a crowd, which they would then lead to the branch where they would conduct a church service.

In its early years, the Pentecostal Union received attention for its exuberant worship. Newspaper reporters documented the jumping that took place during worship services, soon giving the group the nickname “Jumpers.” Alma White initially embraced the designation but, when the Pentecostal movement emerged in 1906, she soon abandoned the term to avoid identification with Pentecostalism, which had become known for its lively worship style and speaking in tongues. The name “Pentecostal Union” continues to cause confusion with people assuming that Alma White and her group spoke in tongues. However, she chose the name prior to the emergence of the Pentecostal movement and never advocated speaking in tongues.

LEADERSHIP

When a reporter asked Alma White about her leadership style, she responded, “my word is final.” The reporter accurately concluded that she was “a dominating personality with no nonsense about her, she rules her people with a beneficent hand” (“A Jersey Bishop” 1926). Alma White closely supervised her branches. From the first land purchase in Denver, she personally handled the myriad details associated with property acquisitions, never relinquishing power of attorney to someone else. She closely oversaw building construction of branches.

Alma White frequently visited her church’s branches to monitor their activities. Her comprehensive supervision of her followers extended far beyond ministerial placement. For instance, one member noted that Alma White had admonished members to spend thirty minutes outdoors daily (Huffman 1908). Most members did not seem to mind her far-reaching control over their lives.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

In her early years of preaching, Alma White faced opposition from Methodist clergy who questioned her right to preach because she was a woman. She was well aware of the sexism that motivated their attempts to restrain her within their notion of woman’s sphere. She remembered, “the pastors said it was a woman’s place to stay home and look after husband and children” (White 1935-1943 2:30). Likewise, they were upset by her renown as an evangelist and her preaching of holiness. She founded Pillar of Fire to escape limitations on her preaching and provide the chance for women as well as men to become ministers. Her ordination symbolized White’s final break from Methodist control.

Kent White’s support of his wife’s ministry was inconsistent. Initially, he opposed the founding of the Pentecostal Union.However, he relinquished his Methodist ministerial credentials and aligned with the group on March 14, 1902, two months after its founding. At times, he championed her preaching, no doubt because it reflected well on his own ministry. On other occasions, he sided with Methodist clergy who opposed his wife. He particularly challenged her preaching on the doctrine of holiness. Sexism more than likely also fueled his opposition. He had expected his wife to play a supportive role in his ministry but she had rejected this status. Instead, she assumed the primary leadership position. He resented being labeled “Mrs. Alma White’s husband” (White 1935-1943 3:144). In 1909, he made good on prior threats to leave, primarily over the issue of speaking in tongues. Alma White refused to embrace this practice despite her husband’s urging. Notwithstanding several attempts, the two were never reconciled. In 1920, Kent White intended to sue Alma White, claiming he was co-founder of the Pillar of Fire and therefore entitled to one-half of the church’s assets. Alma White believed this action was motivated by the Apostolic Faith Church, which Kent had joined in England. She sued him for desertion to make the case that he had no role in the church. While the judge dismissed her case, the information revealed in the trial allowed her to maintain control of her church. Kent’s ongoing efforts to squelch her autonomy in doctrinal issues and church leadership repeatedly failed.

REFERENCES

“A Jersey Bishop on Her Travels.” 1926. Newark News (New Jersey), April 9. 2:73-74 in Alma White’s Evangelism: Press Reports . 2 vols., edited by C. R. Paige and C. K. Ingler, Zarephath, NJ: Pillar of Fire, 1939-1940.

“A Woman Bishop.” 1922. Woman’s Outlook. January. 1:222 in Alma White’s Evangelism: Press Reports. 2 vols., edited by C. R. Paige and C. K. Ingler,. Zarephath, NJ: Pillar of Fire, 1939-1940.

Huffman, Della. 1908. Diary, January 29. Copy in the author’s possession.

Stanley, Susie Cunningham. 1993. Feminist Pillar of Fire: The Life of Alma White. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press.

White, Alma. 1935-1943. The Story of My Life and the Pillar of Fire. 5 vols. Zarephath, NJ: Pillar of Fire.

White, Alma. 1939. Modern Miracles and Answers to Prayer. Zarephath, NJ: Pillar of Fire.

White, Arthur K. 1939. Some White Family History. Denver: Pillar of Fire.

Woman’s Chains. 1924-1970. Zarephath, NJ: Pillar of Fire.

Post Date:
16 November 2015

 

Share

Amanda Berry Smith

 

AMANDA BERRY SMITH TIMELINE

1837 (January 23):  Amanda Berry was born to slave parents, Samuel Berry and Mariam Matthews Berry, in Long Green, Maryland.

1854 (September):  Amanda Berry married Calvin Devine who subsequently fought and died in the Civil War.

1856 (March 17):  Amanda Berry Devine was converted to Christianity.

1865:  Amanda Berry Devine married James Smith and moved to New York City.

1868 (September):  Amanda Berry Smith experienced sanctification at Green Street Methodist Church in New York City.

1869:  James Smith died.

1870 (October):  Amanda Berry Smith began preaching full-time.

1875:  Amanda Berry Smith joined the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.

1878–1890:  Amanda Berry Smith traveled abroad, preaching and advocating temperance.

1893:  Amanda Berry Smith moved to Chicago.

1899 (June 28):  The Amanda Smith Orphan Home and Industrial School opened in Harvey, Illinois.

1915 (February 25):  Amanda Berry Smith died in Florida and was buried in Illinois.

BIOGRAPHY

Amanda Berry [Image at right] was born a slave in Long Green, Maryland on January 23, 1837. Her father, Samuel Berry, subsequently bought his freedom and later the freedom of his wife, Mariam Matthews Berry and five children. Amanda’s father was active in the Underground Railroad and their home served as a prominent station. She grew up in Maryland and central Pennsylvania, often working as a servant in other people’s homes. Her formal education consisted of three-months’ schooling. Her parents taught her to read and write. Amanda Berry married Calvin Devine in September 1854. They had one child, Mazie, who was her only child to live to adulthood. Calvin Devine died while serving in the Civil War. Amanda Berry Devine moved to Philadelphia where she continued to do housework and cooking for others. There she met James Smith whom she married in 1865. They moved to New York City where she took in people’s washing and cleaned houses. James Smith died in November 1869, and Amanda Berry Smith never remarried.

Amanda Berry Smith was converted to Christ on March 17, 1856 in the home of her employer. In September 1868 she was sanctified at Green Street Methodist Episcopal Church in New York City with Rev. John Inskip (1816–1884) as pastor. He preached that sanctification occurred instantaneously and was “the blessing of purity like pardon [which] is received by faith” (Smith 1893:77). Pardon referred to conversion while purity was a synonym for sanctification. Inskip’s understanding of sanctification mirrored that of Phoebe Palmer (1807–1874), who also maintained that sanctification resulted from faith.

Amanda Berry Smith attended Phoebe Palmer’s Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness in New York City and testified there. She began her public ministry by sharing her experience of sanctification in local churches that were primarily African American. She responded to what she believed was God’s call to “go, and I will go with you” (Smith 1893:132) and commenced full-time evangelistic work in October 1870. She consistently preached holiness, which was the doctrine promoted by the Wesleyan/Holiness Movement.

Smith became a popular preacher on the camp meeting circuit. She was also known for her singing and her testimonies. Her involvement at Palmer’s Tuesday Meeting enhanced her reputation since prominent leaders in the Wesleyan/Holiness Movement heard her there. She began preaching more to white congregations, including the two churches in Brooklyn of Rev. Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) where she held week-long services.

Amanda Berry Smith traveled to England in 1878 to begin twelve years of ministry abroad. Her preaching engagements in England included the Keswick camp meeting. During her time in England, she traveled to Scotland and held services in a Presbyterian church there. She journeyed to India in the fall of 1879 and preached in Methodist Episcopal churches. She returned to England and soon traveled to Ireland where she preached in several denominations. Her next destination was Liberia where she arrived in January 1882.

In Liberia, as in England, she promoted temperance along with her evangelistic campaigns. [Image at right] She had joined the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1875, shortly after it was organized. She played an active role in its meetings, both in the United States and later in England. In Liberia, she urged her listeners to sign a pledge to forego drinking alcohol and organized temperance societies. After eight years, she left Africa, visiting England, Scotland, and Ireland for several months before returning to the United States in September 1890. She maintained her dual emphases on temperance and evangelism, preaching at camp meetings and churches. She traveled to California and Canada before traveling to Great Britain and Ireland in 1893.

Amanda Berry Smith relied on unsolicited contributions to cover her ministerial and living expenses. In 1894, she began to play an active role in raising money for a home she envisioned for black orphans in Chicago. She did so while maintaining her busy preaching schedule. The Amanda Smith Orphanage and Industrial Home for Abandoned and Destitute Colored Children opened in 1899. She continued to solicit funds for the orphanage while preaching at revivals, camp meetings and temperance gatherings.

Amanda Berry Smith moved to Florida in 1912 to live in a home provided by a supporter. She died there on February 25, 1915. [Image at right].

TEACHINGS/DOCTRINES

Amanda Berry Smith’s theological emphasis was sanctification or holiness. Other than conversion, she did not address the other doctrines of Methodism that she had affirmed as a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Her experience of achieving holiness paralleled Phoebe Palmer’s description of the means of holiness. This involved consecration and faith followed by the conviction that since the Bible promised holiness, all a Christian must do is claim the biblical promise to have the experience.

In her preaching, Smith focused on the results of holiness more than the means of holiness. She testified to the fact that holiness helped her overcome a “man-fearing spirit” (Smith 1893:111) and enabled her to tell others about her sanctification even when she faced opposition. Power was a manifestation of holiness. Like Palmer, Smith relied on the Holy Spirit’s power in her ministry and preached for the power of Pentecost to be manifested in the present.

While some adherents appeared to believe that experiencing holiness indicated the completion of the spiritual journey, Amanda Berry Smith contended that holiness entailed growth: “There is much of the human nature for us to battle with, even after we are wholly sanctified”(Smith 1893:119–20). She spoke of multiple baptisms of the Holy Ghost rather than one all-encompassing experience.

Amanda Berry Smith was one of the few to examine the relationship between prejudice and holiness. “If they are wholly sanctified to God . . . all their prejudices are completely killed out” (Smith 1893:423). She believed that purity imparted by holiness removed prejudice from the heart of the believer. A clean heart that resulted from sanctification was devoid of prejudice, which Smith clearly believed was a sin. However, she did concede that sometimes there was the need for growth when a sanctified individual still harbored prejudicial attitudes.

ISSUES/CHALLENGES

Amanda Berry Smith disclosed numerous instances of racism she encountered in her ministry. Traveling to engagements required negotiating segregated facilities. She could never be sure if there would be a place en route where she could get a meal or find a place to stay overnight. Once she was taking an omnibus to her destination. Since she was not allowed to ride inside, she sat outside on the top. The vehicle discharged all the white passengers before blacks could get off, even when this meant backtracking (Smith 1893:153).

Adrienne Israel, Smith’s biographer, maintained that the holiness movement contributed to Smith’s success as an evangelist. She credits “the egalitarian thrust of the holiness revival that temporarily crossed boundaries of race, gender, and class, bringing together society’s disparate groups in camp meetings and other kinds of protracted revival meetings” (Israel 1998:154). Holiness worship services were among the few places that provided opportunities for blacks and whites to meet together. Even this supportive climate was not immune to the prejudice prevalent in society, however. Sometimes, the congregational seating was segregated by race. At one camp meeting, Smith wondered if she would be allowed in the dining tent. Her concern turned out to be unfounded but it does indicate that there were probably other instances where this had been the case (Smith 1893:173–74).

Amanda Berry Smith did not shy away from the issue of prejudice. When someone who was apparently white insisted that no one would treat her unkindly, she responded: “But if you want to know and understand properly what Amanda Smith has to contend with, just turn black and go about as I do, and you will come to a different conclusion” (Smith 1893:116). She likewise refused to succumb to the inferior status that others sought to impose on her. She referred to herself as one of “the Royal Black” (Smith 1893:118). She was a charter member of the Illinois NAACP (Israel 1998:154), which was founded in 1909. She deserves to be listed among the forerunners of the civil rights movement.

Amanda Smith also encountered sexism as a woman preacher. Adversaries quoted the scriptural admonition to “Let your women keep silent in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34) in their attempts to inhibit her ministry. She sought to avoid arguments with opponents of women ministers and relied on divine ordination to validate her ministry: “[God] had indeed chosen, and ordained and sent me” (Smith 1893:159). Her denomination, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, did not grant women full ordination privileges until 1948. While lacking denominational credentials, Smith benefited from the support of male clergy and other church leaders. The Wesleyan/Holiness Movement’s affirmation of women preachers also provided a positive climate for her ministry. A historical roadside marker in Shrewsbury, Pennsylvania where she lived growing up attests to her prominence as an evangelist. However, it mistakenly identifies the location of her conversion experience.

IMAGES
Image #1: Photograph of Amanda Berry Smith. Taken from the Illinois State Historical Library collection.
Image #2: Sketch of Amanda Berry Smith on mission in Liberia with Methodist Episcopal Bishop William Taylor.
Image #3: Photograph of a historical marker honoring Amanda Berry Smith. The content on the marker, however, is incorrect.

REFERENCES

Israel, Adrienne M. 1998. Amanda Berry Smith: From Washerwoman to Evangelist. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Smith, Amanda. 1893. An Autobiography: Amanda Smith. Chicago: Meyer.

Post Date:
8 April 2016

 

 

 

Share