Blockchain Papers

Matthew J. Grow

In fall 1876, Brigham Young left Salt Lake City for his annual winter trip to St. George. But this year would be different. For the first time in more than three decades, the Saints would dedicate a temple. In the Nauvoo temple, Young and others had performed proxy baptisms for deceased relatives and friends and participated in the endowment ceremony and sealings for themselves. These practices had continued in the Salt Lake Endowment House along with proxy sealings for deceased individuals. But the temple in St. George would mark a fundamental change; under Young's leadership, the Saints would perform all ordinances that they saw as essential for salvation, including the endowment, for both the living and the dead. The temple ceremonies expressed the highest ideals of the Latter-day Saints: eternal covenants that bound families together and bound them to God.As he left for St. George, Young knew his health might not allow him to live for many more years. He had begun his time as presiding church leader by emphasizing the completion of the Nauvoo Temple even though it became increasingly apparent the Saints would have to abandon the temple shortly thereafter. And now, in the twilight of his life, Young would oversee the dedication of another temple. For Young, the visit to St. George promised to be a time of profound spiritual significance.Leaving on November 1 from Salt Lake City, Young went to St. George with a traveling party that included his wife Amelia Folsom, daughter Shemira, son Brigham Jr., apostles Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon, and Truman Angell (Young's brother-in-law and temple architect).1 The traveling party was eager to see the temple as they crossed the red hills into St. George. The “pure white” temple, Cannon recorded, “stood out in bold relief and in marked contrast with the black and red hills which surround the little valley in which St. George stands.” “It excited peculiar emotions in all the party to witness once more a temple erected to the Most High God,” he wrote.2 As the party came into town, the temple workmen welcomed them, carrying two banners. The first proclaimed “Holliness to the Lord” and depicted Zion's workmen. The second announced, “Welcome to Brigham Young our chief Builder.” The workmen took off their hats and bowed to Young and his companions, who returned the salute.3The next day, Young and the other leaders inspected the temple. In the basement, they saw the cast iron baptismal font, which was being bronzed, sitting on twelve oxen, representing the tribes of Israel. They then ascended into the “grand hall” of the temple. Cannon gave a glimpse of the party's emotions: “The hall is beautifully proportioned and the workmanship is very superior. . . . I felt as though I trod on holy ground. A person who can enter that room without feeling peculiar sensations and being impressed that it was a holy place must be either very thoughtless or dead to all sensibility.”4 Young and his companions continued the tour up to the roof. “The power of God rested upon us,” Woodruff noted.5Ill health soon robbed Young of his opportunity to be involved in the temple's final preparations before a planned partial dedication on New Year's Day. When he arrived, one workman observed that he “looked well and seems in better health than he did last winter.” But Young's health took a turn for the worse, struck both by a heavy cold and a flaring of the rheumatism in his feet.6 Apostle Woodruff blessed him and “rebuked his fever.”7 A week later, Young fainted twice. After two more weeks, Young was still ailing with rheumatic fever. His feet were so painful that he could barely place them on the floor. Woodruff and others again blessed him.8 While the cold passed, the rheumatism remained and kept him homebound for three weeks in December. Finally, on Christmas, Young visited the temple.9During his sickness, Young had delegated key responsibilities to Woodruff, Brigham Young, Jr., and others.10 Young now found the temple bustling with activity, even on Christmas, as men and women hurried to prepare for a preliminary dedication. Charles Walker, one of the workmen, wrote, “The sisters are busy sewing the carpet and getting the screen ready. All are busy pushing the good work along.”11 Brigham Jr. saw divine intervention in his father's improvement, as the Saints had prayed that their prophet could attend the dedication.12 Young spent the evening before the dedication with Woodruff, apostle Erastus Snow, and Brigham Jr., who each would deliver a dedicatory prayer. Young told them that the written prayers were good but needed to be longer.13On New Year's Day, over 1200 Saints crowded into the temple for the preliminary dedication. The final portions of the temple would be finished so that a complete dedication could occur in April. Young's rheumatism left him so crippled that men carried him throughout the temple in a chair with rollers. Young had waited too long for a temple dedication to miss this occasion.At 1:00 in the afternoon, the services began in the basement with a choir singing, “The Spirit of God Like a Fire Is Burning,” a hymn sung at the first temple dedication Young had attended—at Kirtland forty years earlier. Woodruff knelt in prayer at the west end of the baptismal font to dedicate the basement, with Young sitting nearby. After Woodruff's prayer, the choir sang a “Temple Dedication Song” that spoke of the revered place of Young as the Saints’ prophet: We thank thee, God for Inspiration,Poured out upon our Living Head,Who holds the keys of Revelation,And ordinances for the dead.14With Young carried in his chair, the Saints then moved upstairs, where Erastus Snow offered a dedicatory prayer for that floor. Snow asked the congregation to remain behind, in silence, while a group of about thirty (including Young carried in his chair) went upstairs to a sealing room so that Brigham Jr. could pronounce a final prayer.15After the group returned from the sealing room, Young hobbled with his cane to the pulpit to reflect upon the Saints’ history of temple building and the significance of the present moment. He saw the occasion as a crucial moment in the history of the world. Solomon had built a temple but, according to Young's understanding, had performed “very few if any endowments,” and the scriptures did not record whether Enoch had also constructed temples in his efforts to build a “people so pure and holy that they were not permitted to remain with the wicked inhabitants of the earth, but were taken to another place.”Young spoke of the Saints’ early efforts to build temples. In Kirtland, they had performed neither baptisms for the dead nor the endowment ceremony. Joseph Smith had planned for temples in Jackson County and Far West, Missouri, but they had not been built. Looking into the audience, he saw individuals who had worked with him to build the Nauvoo Temple. “They got it nearly completed before it was burned,” Young said. The temple in St. George was different. The Saints would not be driven from this temple. They would enjoy it. And in the temple they would do work—endowments for the dead—that “we have no knowledge of any other people enjoying since the days of Adam.”But Young worried about the spiritual welfare of his people. “Those that can see the spiritual atmosphere,” he commented, “can see that many of the Saints are still glued to this Earth and lusting and longing after the things of this world, in which there is no profit.” “Where are the eyes and hearts of this people? Where is their interest for their own salvation and that of their forefathers?” Young asked. If the Saints awoke to their privilege of participating in the “salvation of the human family,” the temple “would be crowded, as we hope it will be, from Monday morning until Saturday night.”“What do you suppose the fathers would say if they could speak from the dead?” he queried. Would their ancestors say they had “lain here thousands of years, here in this prison house, waiting for this dispensation to come? Here we are, bound and fettered in the association of those who are filthy?” The relatively few Saints had a great responsibility, he taught. The world's dead depended on the Saints for their salvation: “All the angels in heaven are looking at this little handful of people. . . . So also are the devils in hell looking at this people too, and trying to overthrow us, and the people are still shaking hands with the servants of the devil, instead of sanctifying themselves.”He wanted to wake up his people. “Can the Fathers be saved without us? No. Can we be saved without them? No.” Until other temples were dedicated, the Saints would need to converge on St. George. Young had stopped baptisms for the dead in the Endowment House the previous fall. At the time, the Saints had pleaded with him. But now, he said, they could come to St. George and perform the proxy work for their deceased ancestors and free them from spirit prison.Looking at the congregation, Young lamented that some of those present were too involved in the world of Gentiles, particularly in mining. “Some of our brethren,” he grumbled, “are putting their wives and daughters into their society, and will go to the devil with them too, if they do not look out.” He contrasted his own attitude: “It has been the Kingdom of God with me. What I have, I have got in this kingdom.” Some men present were corrupt and would go to hell unless they repented. “You may think this is plain talk.” But, if they did not change, they would be faced with even plainer talk: “If you should ever go to the gates of heaven, Jesus will say he never knew you.”Gripping his hickory cane, Young peered at the congregation: “I do not know whether the people are satisfied with the services of the dedication of the Temple or not. But I do not mean to and never expect to be satisfied,” he continued, “until the devil is whipped and driven from off the face of the Earth.” As he spoke these last words, Young struck the pulpit with his cane so forcefully that he left three marks.16 “There,” Young said, “let those marks remain” as a testimony of his fervor in warning the Saints.17 The striking of the pulpit left a deep impression on his audience. “The marks are on the stand,” one congregant wrote, “and will remain there as a testimony of the truth and the great power by which he spake.”18The sermon was classic Young. He always spoke to the Saints directly, both to laud them and to call them to repentance. He had not mellowed with age. Perhaps he had even grown more cantankerous as his physical pain and his frustration with some Saints mounted as the years passed by. And the actions of the congregation that day must have reminded Young of the slowness of the Saints to reform their Word of Wisdom habits; so much tobacco chewing and spitting occurred that it would take days to clean the floor of the assembly room.19 But most of the faithful Saints in the temple seemed to appreciate Young's words. John Nuttall recorded that Young's sermon had given him greater “determination to press onward in the great work of the last days, in the redemption and salvation to myself, wives, children, and the human family.”20As he sometimes did, Young likely tempered his language before publication of the sermon, revising his sermons for the press in the following days.21 The published remarks have no swearing. But Nuttall recorded that Young had called Saints who engaged in mining as “damned fools” and John Smith wrote that he called them “spawn of hell.” Young did not apologize for his language, saying “he would not ask to be excused for swearing for he intended to swear worse yet at the April conference.”22With the temple dedicated, Young and others prepared the spaces for ordinance work. Young had called men and women who had deep experience in the ordinances in the Endowment House, several of whom he had asked to move to St. George, to assist. First on the list was Woodruff, who would supervise the ordinance work under Young's direction. Brigham Jr. and Young's wife Lucy Bigelow were called as well.23Young clearly wanted his family members to engage in the work of the temple. On January 9, Lucy's daughter Susie became the first individual baptized for the dead in the temple. Using his crutch and walking stick, Young hobbled up the steps to the font so he could witness as Susie was baptized for a deceased friend by Woodruff. Standing near the font, Charles Walker “could not refrain from shedding tears of joy on beholding the commencement of so great a work.”24 Young participated with Woodruff in performing the by the on of that the Young was not participating in a moment for his he was also the of the ordinance the day of baptisms and Young a few for the better in the temple also the first deceased to endowment by proxy was who had performed in Nauvoo and in Salt Lake City and who had been called by Young to in the St. George called it the and work I ever While and Woodruff were with the endowment, of the workmen were in the was not proxy that took Lucy's daughter own endowment on January a later, of also endowment, as did also the of the of the endowment ceremony as another essential When Joseph Smith had the in he had not it to Young and others In the the ceremony had not been But in those decades, the endowment had been performed in one place at a the House in Salt the Endowment the of Young and other Young was the church for a in which the endowment would be performed in at from each and a written would be was not in had been performed in the Endowment he saw the opportunity to long given him by Joseph after performing the first in had Young, this is not we have the we could under the in which we are I you to take this in and all these Young had taken that in to the ceremony in the Nauvoo Temple in the winter of but he would now supervise Woodruff the of all the ordinances of the including the temple Brigham Jr. and John Nuttall Young worked with them, revising and as they When they had Young told Woodruff, you have before you to on the in all the until the of the of also to perform the ceremony for of people. on that he spent the day and evening with Woodruff and others the of Young in of the Young and his had completed the of and revising the ceremony and the of the On Woodruff recorded that Young been all winter to up a of as as to performing for the dead for the first time, a final temple ordinance began in St. George as sealing deceased to deceased to a crucial of temple from on salvation of individuals and in the ceremonies of for the the endowment, and to the to family also spent much of his time following the New Year's dedication the Saints of the and in the temple. A few weeks after the he a to with for Saints who would to the temple. Young the of those the spiritual but the Saints should all over before the prepare the Saints and Young temple to visit both to about the temple and the wanted to they would whether they would come for their own ordinances or also be prepared to do ordinances for deceased friends and temple returned with many from the Saints that they to Young. When should their Young's “If of a and early of and as early as twelve but as a years is early When the temple to be to their should they be In Would who before the of need to be baptized for the dead or temple ordinances sealing to their No. need any No. deceased who had been out of be to their or to their “They should be to the one who has the and on who would be for temple their a faithful to a endowment and be to and What about a individual to their own they be baptized by until we see one that Young What about the are not Young came by from Saints in on Would a in in a need to the ceremony in the upon whether there has been a record kept of or not. If there has it will be Young taught. on individuals in family had two or three living their is the for to The as Young other Saints to attend the temple, he was not a He that would him to do proxy ordinance work for For Young wrote to the of Young's first wife who had more than a earlier. Young asked a living in to the and of so that the temple work could be performed on their ordinance work performed by Young his for the salvation of the first of some of his Young performed his first proxy endowment for first John who had after three of Young had as proxy for in sealing the for in the Nauvoo temple before he had been to for this The next day, he performed temple for first also prepared to do proxy ordinances for his but the end of his in St. George, he he was to go the He asked his Brigham Jr., and his to the proxy and sealing for John and Young. Brigham Jr. recorded that day, for the dead is a of and of the most and in of spiritual was in the St. George temple, on the that Saints should be to a faithful than their own who might the The first performed in the St. George temple, on were the of two of his and and the deceased of But it was not relatives of his wives who were to Young. On April John called as in St. George, was to Young by temple work was and for Young. For the first time in more than three decades, the Saints again had a temple. the in Young wrote, work is being to in the Temple The of the work for and in of the dead up before the Saints more than ever and they are increasingly the upon the of those who are called to be the upon in the last kept of many ordinances were performed each day in the temple. The of ordinances each day more than individual They were to Young and his that they were building the of God both here and in the spirit Young's work and church temple work needed by both women and Like other the women of the Young family found significance in temple For the two decades, Snow, Young's had temple work in the Endowment Lucy Bigelow Young, by took on the in the St. George Temple. On Lucy and Wilford Woodruff both in to perform the temple a for Lucy told the St. George was in the of being by them with as all would be by those who could not do the work for themselves. to live to of in Young, another of Young's wives, took place as both and in temple work. had also been involved in the for the St. George temple, than to to for the temple from where the were Young worked in the temples in St. George, and Salt presiding over the temple Young also continued to the work of the throughout the world from St. George, even while his and others took of many of the in Salt Lake passed and St. George and Salt Lake City, Young's and his on a of and also continued to hope for the Saints’ in another of his Word of to his wife Young, in his years, Young to upon the people the of both in and When he up a list of to the spiritual of Saints in the St. George the Word of Wisdom had the for Word of Wisdom on But now, members and the Word of Wisdom according to the Spirit and the first time since the great Young a place than Salt Lake City for perform a temple this time of the Young the Saints in that were in St. George, so most Saints in should not the to come to the dedication and But the leaders and many of Young's own family the to temple another of to prepare for the final dedication. by Young did physical and the pain in Young's feet continued to him as did his But Young in to he did not from pain as he had in the Saints’ ideals and their was ever present for Young. The Saints who had so to build the St. George temple to the of then as the of tobacco while the temple and But Young's final in St. George were The Saints had constructed a temple where they and their deceased ancestors and friends could the ordinances of was a moment of eternal significance to be Young had this Temple and the of the A great joy and had been in the spirit world on of the performed by the for the dedication of the St. George temple and the of and sealings of to for the deceased the Young's in that Saints to the St. George temple to perform proxy ordinances for their deceased family and began a by which temple became a crucial of for the Latter-day on the of the Young told temple “we had work since “I it to be the work that I have ever

David J. Howlett

In May 1991, an editor of the official magazine of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints reflected on a tumultuous quarter-century of liberalization within her church. She did so with a feature article previewed on the magazine's cover with the lines, “Framers remember formation of World Church Objectives,” and a picture of four of these framers. Those pictured were all elderly white American men. Ostensibly about a series of church objectives adopted in 1966, the article itself detailed the movement of the RLDS Church toward peace and justice theology, the inclusion of women in the priesthood, and a reframing of the very notion of mission in the church. In doing so, the article's writer included quotes from people involved in these changes. The individuals quoted had once held offices in the Council of Twelve Apostles or the church's First Presidency, the highest-ranking leadership groups in the church. The quotes were all from white American men.1In the 1970s, priesthood in the RLDS Church ranged from local priesthood who preached and presided over weekly meetings to denominational leaders who set church-wide policies. Until the mid-1980s, men filled all priesthood offices. Additionally, the RLDS Church, numbering 220,000 at its sesquicentennial in 1980, was overwhelmingly an American church, peopled by a white supermajority, even though it had a small presence in twenty-nine nations and an even smaller number of Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Latino, and Indigenous Americans.2 Most senior church leaders in the 1960s and ‘70s were also white American men. These were the individuals who gave new revelations to the church, articulated church policies, and shaped things as mundane as hiring practices. Given this, the small cadre of historians who have investigated the RLDS Church's late twentieth-century liberalization have focused, perhaps understandably, on white American church leaders with graduate seminary degrees. These influential RLDS leaders participated in ecumenicism, taught peace and justice theology, and had transformative, global encounters as they spread the RLDS Church to Asia and Africa in the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s.3This paper refocuses our attention on a different set of people who also shaped the church's rapid liberalization. These people included Barbara Howard, who wrote the article featured in my introduction. A longtime Saints Herald editor, Howard was also a founding member of a grassroots RLDS feminist consciousness-raising group. As I will argue, RLDS reformers like Howard allied with people across lines of identity, nationality, faith, and privilege, creating networks that helped make the church's liberalization plausible in the first place. Furthermore, the RLDS individuals and organizations that I will highlight in this essay gesture towards a broader story about how the New Left, forged in the fires of the 1960s, found religious denominations, like the RLDS Church, as fertile incubators for the extension of its projects across the global 1970s and 1980s. These were decades in which most scholars saw both liberal religion and the New Left in full decline, if not collapse.4 During these trying decades, the New Left emphasized the importance of grounding massive change in local organizations—in the small and the particular.In mid-twentieth century America, “small was big,” notes historian Daniel Immerwahr. This was particularly true of the New Left, that largely Western social movement advocating for identity-based rights in the 1960s. “Whereas the older leftism centered on trade unions and mass parties,” Immerwahr argues, “the new generation, enamored with ‘participatory democracy’ and ‘the beloved community,’ questioned the very basis for such organizations.”5 The New Left instead reveled in the democratic possibilities of small groups to create revolutionary change. For instance, the philosopher Herbert Marcuse told a New York audience in 1968 that the New Left was “diffused, concentrated in small groups and around local activities, small groups which are highly flexible and autonomous,” forming a “political guerilla force in peace.”6 For activists like Marcuse and his allies in the paradigmatic New Left student group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), smallness seemed an antidote to all social ills.By the early 1970s, influential sages, such as the Gandhian economist E. F. Schumacher, the author of the best-selling 1973 book Small Is Beautiful, promoted the virtues of smallness.7 Politicians joined this chorus, too. Ronald Reagan, hardly a paragon of the New Left, declared in 1975, “It is activity on a small, human scale that creates the fabric of community.”8 The valorization of smallness also had a creative global reach across the 1970s. For example, Filipino community organizers created small, networked student groups to resist Ferdinand Marcos's dictatorship, and feminists across the United States and the globe met in small groups they called “consciousness-raising” groups for education, sharing, and political advocacy.I did not choose the latter examples randomly; the community organizing movement and radical feminism had distinct manifestations within the RLDS Church in the 1970s and 1980s. In what follows, I will highlight two individuals who exemplify these movements in the RLDS Church: the RLDS feminist theologian turned Unitarian, Sharon Welch, and the radical Catholic, community organizer, and RLDS NGO employee, Toto Delfin. As I will show, their social movements helped transform the RLDS Church, asking leadership to reimagine hierarchy and cultivate a more participatory understanding of the church. The RLDS Church, in turn, partially embraced these visions, redefining itself as a “Community of Christ” and proclaiming itself a “prophetic people,” not a “people with a prophet.”The RLDS Church's decision to do so asks us to reflect on the sources for rapid change within late-twentieth-century American-based churches. Put another way, did change come from above, below, or beside? More provocatively, the RLDS Church's evolution should also give us pause to ask what we mean by thinking about some religious groups as being successful in late-twentieth-century America. For instance, historians often talk about the success of evangelicals and Pentecostals in the late twentieth century. At the same time, they invoke words like “decline” when they write about liberal or ecumenical Protestants and liberal Jews from the same era. While it may seem less polite to do so with Restoration traditions, many everyday members of these churches point to the success of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the decline of the RLDS Church (Community of Christ). “Success” in these formulations, of course, is based upon the relative number of adherents that either one or the other group has, as well as the size of their endowments.I would like us to consider a slightly different question of and metric for success in this essay. In short, I would like us to think about how particular groups within a denomination can change their group internally. That is, how well do interest groups within their denomination change policies and orientations and exert wider cultural influence? As I will argue, New Left-aligned groups within the RLDS Church in the 1970s and 1980s might have influenced a numerically declining church, but they were astoundingly successful in giving their parent church a new set of orientations and policies. To make this case, I will first turn to Sharon Welch's story and detail the influence of small feminist groups upon the 1970s RLDS Church.In April 1977, twenty-five-year-old Sharon Patton Welch delivered a paper at a conference sponsored by an RLDS feminist consciousness-raising group called AWARE or Awake, Worship, Action, Renewal, and Education. The conference, held in Independence, Missouri, focused on women and the priesthood. Its keynote address featured a feminist theologian from Vanderbilt, where Sharon Patton Welch was a graduate student. For the April conference, Welch boldly proffered a constructive critique of the very idea of priesthood in her church.Welch began by methodically showing her audience problems with the notions of hierarchy in the Melchisedec and Aaronic Priesthoods and clerical Christianity. She argued that it was not just that the RLDS priesthood excluded women; the priesthood itself was based upon a hierarchical worldview, elevating some humans and lowering others. In an act of feminist resourcement, Welch offered a pragmatic intervention that drew upon particular RLDS traditions to counter this hierarchy. “If authority is defined as the ability to evoke skills and creative initiative in others,” she argued, “rather than the right to govern and lead, it seems appropriate that we think of it as emerging out of the social acceptance of one's effort to facilitate the growth of others.”9 This was what made priesthood a possibly transformative, liberating experience. Welch opined that such a system would enable the RLDS Church “to expand its ministry as it is open to the variety within each person, and is no longer restricted by fixed, limited definitions of the talents peculiar to each sex. This type of system discards the safety of defined patterns of service and hierarchical patterns of control. It is an acceptance of the challenge to develop a community characterized by collegiality and trust.”10 While somewhat vague, Welch envisioned a system of authority within the church that could be characterized as an interconnected web of consciousness-raising groups.Radical feminists created consciousness-raising groups in the late 1960s as a means for education, agitation, and, ultimately, they hoped, revolution. Many individuals who identified as radical feminists had felt shut out of New Left and Civil Rights advocacy groups where feminist issues might be marginalized or even ridiculed. In response, radical feminists advocated for forming small, cell-like groups where individuals could come together for face-to-face interactions, listen and validate each other's experiences, and be educated on feminist pedagogy and issues—and thus have their consciousnesses raised. These groups stressed egalitarian processes, too, where no one person was to dominate discussions, and group tasks would be rotated among participants, obviating the need for the specialization of roles or hierarchical leaders. In the 1970s, feminist consciousness-raising groups became places for radical political advocacy, personal growth, and group therapy.11In some ways, 1970s feminist consciousness-raising groups mirrored the best of what Welch had experienced in her church. Born and raised in the tiny farming town of Dimmitt, Texas, Welch attended a small RLDS branch (congregation) mostly composed of her family. In later reminiscences, she emphasized how it affirmed her, giving her great confidence in herself. Her voice was taken seriously, and she grew to believe that her calling in life was to be a scholar and earn a PhD, a degree that no one in her social sphere possessed.12 Welch also reflected that RLDS summer family camps, called by RLDS folks “reunions,” were really “socialist experiments.” “People paid what they could pay and donated their labor,” she noted. The RLDS folks who attended these camps were “farmers, janitors, and truck drivers,” and the vast majority lacked a college education. “The most uneducated worker,” she noted, “might have the insight in a class or prayer meeting that changed people's lives. There was no elitism.” As a child and teen, “it just seemed so natural for me to see people living in cooperative ways”—a stark contrast to the outside world.13Welch was a gifted high school student and left West Texas for Michigan State in a she to the RLDS Church's liberal she in but she did not That when she with RLDS her the and they and it an of feminist possibilities in Welch later that was I of the cultural of religion so in also her with RLDS feminists who became her and like Barbara Howard her to a small, RLDS where all in of priesthood Additionally, Welch was to do that no RLDS women had at the a graduate to she to in but not she and Barbara Howard attended the meeting of an RLDS feminist consciousness-raising group in in group was not the first RLDS feminist consciousness-raising group. A small group of and at had the in and it out to in some of its of these and and the group that would Welch to their meeting at the of in Independence, RLDS women and a to the RLDS Church's the leadership group in the church, composed of the First Presidency, the Council of Twelve and the of The began by This is on of all the women in the church by of their have from full within the church not to ask that another or be filled by one of the many women church but that a true in so that no one who is as and to tasks be for a this time, women of the in the RLDS Church, they held very with of authority within the church's and local Most of these priesthood and an RLDS conference women from in the priesthood. the that did not priesthood were largely filled by men. In the RLDS World a to and more women for but was no hiring 1973 and Given this the of the feminist the RLDS World AWARE women RLDS women from across the church to their At one such conference in AWARE women RLDS if they could their meeting in official conference as other interest like or their In response, AWARE member a longtime and the RLDS Church's a to the group. AWARE women their meeting on paper and in This act AWARE of new and a group of within the 1970s RLDS AWARE feminists to their and each other even if AWARE members had to be more when in official church AWARE met in the of its members in the Its meetings were a with and within the a it held in with many other 1970s feminist consciousness-raising In this way, AWARE women to the church they would be embraced more its two decades of AWARE became a for and AWARE women feminist also local women for the first for of in their advocated for more in church and helped a advocating for women in the RLDS priesthood. AWARE also the conference at which student Sharon Welch the Welch delivered her address in 1977, she was to called to a different As she later the RLDS Church in graduate At that women were not being and it was a the women who were but who were not and who movement being taken on She that “the for me was that more people of Jesus and the of in liberal not Welch to in her became as she began to other religious In Welch became a and taught as an of at the first person with in Restoration to at was not in her another RLDS left the RLDS Church in the early 1980s and was in the United Church of Welch, she a feminist at a in her case, of at AWARE and from in the RLDS Church, the became a college and and the latter a feminist in she that inclusion was not even for the majority in the 1970s RLDS This mirrored among as historian argues, the decline of churches in the 1970s can be to number of but one was that these liberal traditions were not liberal to many New Left activists in the Welch and some of her feminist who left the RLDS church a with it in Welch that was not so a the RLDS but a of what it taught For a time, Welch to to RLDS and feminist In she a to a on RLDS by Herald the official RLDS The official RLDS the in turn, a of Welch's first of and A of Welch even to in to an AWARE where she with the women with she first experienced a consciousness-raising life a of radical within the RLDS Church in the 1970s. While Welch left the RLDS Church, she and her feminist helped create an in which could be in the first place. She also a of RLDS that in which the priesthood itself became more egalitarian and even women to be to the RLDS priesthood in was not the one by the possibilities of grassroots In this the RLDS embraced a global in which community organizing could radical social in the and Welch's in on the of an RLDS NGO that did just to community organizing in the RLDS Church, we turn from the to the where radical who an RLDS NGO a new understanding of in the 1970s and a in the of in that time, as his called had for and its parent for more than in a for an with me that the and a told a I raised my a senior and a Filipino A This of a that from of in community that began a the first of Filipino and some of the Filipino Ferdinand Marcos's During these called the as it in the first of the called out the and The with and even student many joined the Filipino and its the New organizations to create social such as the Council for or in This latter group and from the community organizing movement in the United States by and from American the 1970s, community organizing like the as student activists to as places to create radical democratic from its not or could their and create change. A community could facilitate change but could not the they the people to for their articulated and helped the 1970s, most in the were that gave A community also in this was to local by the 1960s, the had the as a for local political and many of sponsored by Filipino churches or church became of to Marcos's policies and of this in the Born to a farming family in had attended a high school and college that many radical a with a community organizing NGO college in NGO to in the of to and his among the was when allied with local his in their small, upon the just the and would have if had NGO out of the and a for another NGO in met another radical NGO who was a was from a radical family. was one of the a group of who the for its and his had as to in the human for for a of liberal human the the more radical than their were particularly in community organizing to the of human found an to do an RLDS Church RLDS Church itself in the in 1966, four from a tiny church. These of their and family networks the RLDS church. also helped create the church's first NGO in the or This being in the of the First and Marcos's of in Marcos's with the New in the in A small RLDS in the of was in the The all of to their and from the the members of the RLDS and In RLDS Filipino leaders for to their RLDS and the church's the American and Filipino RLDS leaders upon a The would to from the and the of the the of their the RLDS would that the to in the new Furthermore, they would in how to like and this from of for This was successful as it was and As an of this, began to influence the RLDS Church, American thinking that local to in the in that the attention of American such as the early 1970s, his to the a mission of in and the RLDS this mission as its As the RLDS RLDS to the This the the of RLDS leaders and In RLDS the attended a on at the also the projects by in in an employee, was as the of for had not of a community organizing but of and their In the early an that to community organizing and human this to his In interest in community organizing to Toto a of the they created a they called or a that had a life of its in the RLDS and I have the I will just an from our radical of the and his valorization of the local the the could be for a variety of In it the to make liberalization in for the on this focused on in and of the of the global in the a and RLDS and a cultural and radical to participatory human to their This was on a too. the of the New Left and in the decades the 1970s emphasized the denominational leaders the of participatory human to a new of of their denominational for instance, church leaders opined that their denomination to be more from meetings to World became a that or even their to the church. It also some and offices. The and of the of which was one had a on the RLDS In a group of American RLDS leaders a to the church's of that meeting a to the denomination as “Community of The church who this emphasized that the denomination to be than people with a It was a of the and of the movement in the very of the American-based Barbara Herald article quoted at the of this Council of Twelve Apostles think we would be a a we had not the of that and I think be a if we had the might see and in of the 1980s. For example, of denominational for is of what it was in the late and its by a these latter the great of the 1970s and 1980s was a In this, of Christ other in it to if the success of the is by different small groups of people on the of the RLDS Church had created successful within the denomination by the late 1980s. RLDS could point to small things that had to projects the the inclusion of women in the priesthood, a networked with other liberal and peace and justice the what do we make of of liberalization and its as a The words of one of the of the church's liberalization a In Sharon Welch she was not about the of the global justice one that radical and Welch's RLDS American feminists helped cultivate within the RLDS Church in the 1970s and 1980s. she is that global justice by the and of who and to doing all that I can to it one should such a from a who grew in a small on the of a small For people like Welch and her of Christ is an in small

Daniel Castelo

I am pleased to respond to Mark Gorman, who has written a fine piece, ‘Emptiness as a Work of the Holy Spirit in the Writings of John and Charles Wesley’. Before I engage his argument, let me make a few broader observations in relation to pneumatology.It largely depends on who one asks as to whether the opinion prevails that pneumatology continues to be woefully neglected among the doctrinal loci of Christian doctrines. On the one hand, recent movements and scholarly works show that it is of significant interest to sectors of the theological scholarly guild. On this score, one thinks of Myk Habets and his work to promote a ‘Third Article Theology’ as well as Simeon Zahl and his important recent monograph on the Holy Spirit and experience.1 On the other hand, dominant narratives die hard, and it continues to be the case that pneumatology is held with significant suspicion by other sectors of this same guild. The suspicion can take many shapes. In terms of ecclesiology, some may be worried about distinguishing (and possibly holding at arm’s length) Pentecostal and charismatic phenomena, which often make their presence known across many denominational traditions in the majority world. In terms of epistemology, others may be worried about the subjective elements involved with pneumatology, elements that make it difficult to identify—and so to know—which reactions and happenings are properly of the Spirit and which ones are properly of humans. Tied to this last point is a broader theo-logical concern: Can one identify what the Spirit of God is doing today? If the operating—even if implicit—assumption is that one cannot, then time-honoured customs and practices may seem ‘safer’ than current events on the global scene. Such are some of the challenges surrounding pneumatology that continue to make it a contested topic.2Despite these mixed opinions, pneumatology is integrally connected to Christian renewal and revival.3 Such is the case because the Spirit is able to press through to the deep registers of the self; the Spirit can open eyes, hearts, and minds to the possibilities of the gospel. In other words, the Spirit is the spirit of life and new life, the One who awakens, stirs, and empowers Christ’s disciples to deeper and broader forms of commitment, witness, and service. This unique connection between pneumatology and renewal is important to highlight because of the challenges ecclesial communities perpetually face. With the passing of time, ecclesial traditions can and do grow staid, inconsistent, or—even worse—lifeless and perhaps even hypocritical. What can appear ‘safe’ to the majority can also uphold the status quo, which itself may be in need of reform. Therefore, the importance of pneumatology for ecclesial revitalization should not be lost on account of worries related to possible excesses. Any doctrinal locus can be misappropriated; any custom or practice can be abused. Pneumatology is not any worse on this score than other doctrinal themes since the issue is not so much the theme itself but rather its interpretation and application.In continuing this logic, one can say that throughout its history, the Wesleyan movement has been an expression and outworking of Christian renewal, and because it is so, it can also be described as a Spirit movement. The movement’s origins in the lives of the Wesleys and others in eighteenth-century England have set a pattern that has been reflected in subsequent developments and changing contexts. This pattern includes the working out of one’s own salvation in the company of others, the search for holiness, and the transformation of the self in the perfect love of God. These and other relevant themes are pneumatological in orientation. The Wesleyan movement would not have originated and developed as it did apart from the presence and work of the Spirit. Some scholars may see this connection more clearly than others, but it is one that is well established in the scholarly literature.4One can further argue that if the Wesleyan movement is a Spirit movement, then it can also be labelled an expression of Christian mysticism. This notion works as an operating assumption in Gorman’s piece, but it is worth justifying at some level, given questions and concerns surrounding the language of mysticism and its relationship to Wesleyanism in particular. At least two sets of concerns must be explored for these associations to be viable.First, what is the connection between pneumatology and mysticism? This question is a broad one that requires significant definitional demarcation. If in this case pneumatology has to do with the doctrine of the Third Person of the Trinity, then mysticism in its Christian forms can mean the transformative encounter with the Triune God of Christian confession. Put another way, the experiential dimensions associated with Christian pneumatology and Christian mysticism can (and should) be grounded in the confession of the Christian God who is active and at work in the world today. This theo-logical orientation should help alleviate some of the concerns that accompany both themes, especially as they run into excesses associated with anthropologizing impulses that would stress the cultivation of the ‘human spirit’ or mystical experiences that largely draw a person deeper into their own consciousness and being.5Second, whereas it may be viable to call the Wesleyan movement a pneumatological one, it seems a stretch to call it a form of Christian mysticism given the unflattering things Wesley said about mysticism in his own lifetime. Is it appropriate to speak of Wesleyanism as an expression of Christian mysticism when Wesley made it a point to decry and lambast mysticism on many different occasions?As with many cases in the oeuvre of Wesley, receiving him well must involve more than simply proof-texting him. A study that has largely been forgotten in Wesleyan secondary literature stresses a more nuanced way of receiving Wesley on the matter of Christian mysticism. In the preface to his work Mysticism in the Wesleyan Tradition, Robert G. Tuttle Jr catalogues some of the instances of Wesley’s critique of mysticism while noting an alternative dynamic as well:A couple of things should be noted from this extensive quote. First, Tuttle draws a particular distinction in terms of chronology: He remarks that Wesley stressed these points ‘early’ in his ministry. This observation fits within Tuttle’s broader argument that early in his life, Wesley was dealing with a spiritual crisis that was fomented by certain mystical writers and sensibilities (or what Tuttle calls a ‘mystical system’).7 One can argue about Tuttle’s assessment of how Wesley’s early struggles should be best described, but the importance of naming the time frame of those quotes is invaluable for assessing their significance. Clearly, such hyperbolic language surrounding mysticism means that something was personally at stake for Wesley on these themes during certain seasons of his life. Second, whereas Tuttle draws attention to the quotes that inform the general impression that Wesley was against Christian mysticism, he also stresses that Wesley employed certain mystical figures to be paragons of his understanding of Christian perfection, a belief and logic that is often lifted up as a (if not arguably, the) distinguishing feature of Methodism. It is this last point that is often neglected in an assessment of Wesley’s estimation of Christian mysticism. Those figures that Wesley deemed as paragons of Christian perfection include the Marquis de Renty, Gregory Lopez, and others. Such figures (who, interestingly, were typically Roman Catholic) often found their way in abridged form in Wesley’s Christian Library. These claims alongside the personal witness of John Fletcher, who was a kind of mystical figure himself, collectively suggest that Wesley had an appreciation for mystical voices throughout the latter stages of his ministry.8 From these examples, one can see that this appreciation took many forms: It was not simply a nominal gesture, but one that manifested itself in overt and significant ways. On account of this evidence, one can say that the logic of the Wesleyan revival bears important resonances with features of Christian mysticism.This context is important to note so that one can see that Gorman’s instincts in this article are sound and worth highlighting. He both emphasizes pneumatological aspects of Wesley’s witness and moves into the mystical realm for considering more deeply a certain part of Wesley’s noted spiritual journey. Let us now move to some specific features of the article itself.Gorman begins by suggesting a contrast between a familiar Wesley and a less familiar Wesley, the first involving a robust and lively presentation of the Spirit’s work and presence, and the latter involving a sense of the absence or distance of God, what Gorman describes as ‘spiritual emptiness’. I wish to pause here and simply note that at work in Gorman’s framework to his article is a tension related to reception history. Wesley’s familiarity (or lack thereof) is very much a reflection of those who are reading him, interpreting him, invoking him, and so forth. I say this in large part because if it is the case that Wesley is less familiar to us on a theme that can be described as ‘spiritual emptiness’, then the situation is very likely so because we may not want to know this feature of Wesley’s witness (And by ‘we’ I mean those who consider themselves Wesley’s heirs and champions). Casting doubt or questioning features of Wesley’s spiritual development is difficult for those who esteem him so highly. If this difficulty is accurate, we can go on to ask, Why would it be difficult to recognize this part of Wesley’s life?My suspicion is that we may not know or want to know this Wesley because we may not have readily available the categories needed to help us understand him on this score. Readers of Wesley may have a kind of grammar that does not allow for something like ‘spiritual emptiness’ because such an idea would bring with it the connotation of regression or perhaps even apostasy. That connotation does not need to be the case, but again, different categories and sensibilities are required so as to have an alternative assessment available. The mystical traditions of Christianity can provide Wesleyanism with such a resource. Such is the gist of Gorman’s analysis, and I agree with its usage in this particular case. The goal here is not to make Wesley something that he was not. Wesley was not a figure in the vein of Gregory of Nyssa or pseudo-Dionysius. He was even quite different from William Law and Madame Guyon. The realm of Christian mysticism, however, is significantly varied; it has fluctuated over the years in many important ways.9 Those fluctuations persist within a larger set of general themes, ones that can include the value of apophaticism, the conceptual purchase of paradox, the logic of the mystical ‘steps’ or ‘stages’, and so on. Taken as a whole, these general themes contribute to a kind of sensibility that is in some contrast with revivalist sensibilities that stress conversion experiences that involve clear demarcations of before and after states of Christian existence. In other words, if the latter logic is prominent in the reception tendencies of Wesley’s interpreters, then they would find it difficult to appreciate a ‘spiritual emptiness’ feature to Wesley’s spiritual life; but if the former logic is operative, then the idea is not just possible but quite germane: Mystics often stress the importance and value of something like ‘spiritual emptiness’. If the goal is to understand Wesley well, then it is crucial that his linguistic tendencies be located within frameworks that help us attend to what he is experiencing and where he is in the Christian spiritual journey.Gorman believes the Wesleys connect emptiness to a number of moments in the spiritual life. For instance, emptiness can involve a sense of conviction that the Spirit makes available. In this case, the Spirit provides an awareness of how sinners are both empty without God and distant from God on account of their sin. It is this awareness brought about by the Spirit’s work that prompts sinners to confess, repent, and respond properly and fittingly to the grace that is made available to them. Gorman also delves into other circumstances in which the language of emptiness could apply. Such cases would include those who experienced justifying faith in such a rapid way that a process of self-knowledge was circumvented, so that it made itself all the more pressing in a justified state. On this point, Gorman mentions Wesley’s own reflections on his struggles immediately after Aldersgate. Could the language of emptiness and/or withdrawal apply here as well?I would say yes, it could, but it would do so in a qualified way. My sense of what Gorman is after is to speak of the Spirit’s work in those deep recesses of the human soul, work that helps prompt a person to ongoing growth and maturity. Therefore, just as one has different qualifiers to grace in the Wesleyan vision so as to account for different places or markers along the way of a person’s ongoing conformity to God—these being prevenient, convicting, justifying, regenerating, and sanctifying grace (among others)—perhaps what is also needed are qualifiers to the notion of emptiness or distance: convicting emptiness, justifying emptiness, perfecting emptiness, and so forth. The goal with these designations is not to be cute. The goal is to account for the multifaceted work of the Spirit, both in terms of what happens outside of the person or what the person responds to, and what happens deeply within the person. It is the kind of pneumatological pattern that dovetails nicely with Jesus’s words in the Johannine Farewell Discourses: Jesus promises us in John 14:17 that the Spirit will be with us (which has an external dimension of grace that we respond to) and in us (which has an internal dimension that can include promptings and distances, all of which are meant to stir the person to deeper self-awareness and deeper commitment and love toward God).In my reading, Gorman is attempting to stress the Spirit’s active role in how we go about living out a favourite New Testament passage of the Wesleys, namely that the Spirit plays an active role in how we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). It is fitting that each of the brothers thinks of the role of the Spirit in slightly different ways on some of these points, and my inclination is to stress that these differences are likely due to the different ways each brother spiritually developed over the course of their lives. Gorman helps us to appreciate that the Wesleys serve as examples of how the Spirit meets us where we are and prompts us to the growth we need, every step of the way.

Clive Murray Norris

This chapter explores the overall costs of the Wesleyan Methodist chapel estate, and the impact which this financial challenge had upon the Connexion, drawing comparisons with other approaches including that of Anglicanism. Chapel construction triggered the movement’s 1760s financial crisis, and led to the decentralization of responsibility for chapel debt, though with some national oversight. This succeeded in keeping total chapel debt manageable. The scale and timing of chapel construction reflected membership growth, but in some regions did not keep pace. Resources were available, from the growing number of wealthier Methodists, and sometimes from Connexional grants. But there were tensions between the ambitions of local societies and concerns over debt, and between ensuring accessibility to the Gospel, and dependence on the wealthy. By 1800, chapel financing formed part of a complex Connexional financial regime.

Sharon V. Betcher

Anyone working in constructive theology surely knows the age of epistemological positivism is over, such that something more than qualifying our proofs positive of a historical Jesus is at stake in the teaching of Christology. As Christians we live within the public humiliation of Christianity-within the decades consequent to its imbrication with racism, sexism, colonialism, and (especially poignant for us in Western Canada) cultural genocide, while currently the public face of Christianity has been assumed as a front for North America's war against terrorism. Given the ways in which each of these structures of exclusion pivoted upon a Christological conviction, critical theories, like the practice of confession, prevent us from simply burying our sins under the insecurities of our present time. Critical theories help us remediate the ways in which our Christologies, our sacred imaginais, have been imbricated with structural oppression and the ways in which, without remediation of our symbolic imaginai, we will, among other things, metabolize these Christologies of imperial-colonial power and oedipalized disconnection from sentience. For these reasons as well as for reasons of a theologian's own intellectual integrity and ethical responsibility, the Christological curriculum needs to be brought into conversation with critical theories. But that said, the practice of critical theory can, in the theological classroom, be felt as yet one more, even the final and most vulnerable, challenge to any hope of religious entrustment to life. Theology students, if not Christians in the world at large, can-given the ingress of modernity and their own desire for ontological security-reach for a foundationalist approach to religion, for biblical positivism or literalism-as is verified by the turn to religious fundamentalisms, scripturally-based evangelicalism, and the insularity of narrative communities. So how can progressive Christianities attend to the psychic need of humans, given modernity's dis-embedding technologies so stressing our capacities of life entrustment, without giving up the credible intellectual critiques so important to disrupting the more destructive vectors, that is, those occasioning economic division and ecological decimation, of the globalizing of modernity? The temptation for the academic trained up in modernism may be to present students with various Jesus portraits and Christological propositions and then demonstrate how critical theories invalidate such proposals, or at least produce intellectual skepticism. Applied in this way, critical theories contribute to a modernist epistemological rationalism which elides the lived body in its social milieu and thereby undercut the confidence of the learner. But could there be a way to apply critical theories to what we teach and how we teach, such that these tools of reflection can help us not only ameliorate this age of insecurities, but resurrect Christianities? In pursuit of that possibility, I here consider where biblical and theological colleagues, working in the dimensions of poststructuralism and other critical theories, suggest we plant or root postcolonial, post-modern conversations on Christology. When we relent our struggles for mastery over Jesus, so much a part of both liberalizing and conserving modern theologies, where does Christological discourse end up? What does the application of critical theories suggest about the shape and content of Christologies for a feminist, postmodern, post-colonial context? This is not to say that critical theories can do everything for us. The practice of theology makes claims on us-to posit value, to promote livable imaginais-which are not necessarily the responsibility of other critical theories. Critical theories can help us undertake ethical, analytic reflection on our practice and help us, through something like theological archaeology,1 to recuperate theological wisdom from various historical strata of Christian experience. …