THE SUBJECTIVE SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE, THE EXTRA-BIBLICAL, AND AN AMERICAN SECT

God has loved us enough to give us a viable standard, one that is adequate for setting boundaries for our spiritual safety. Therefore, our subjective experiences are simply not important enough to be exalted over the Biblical standard God has afforded us. We certainly have no business leading others with or because of them, until we can sufficiently apply ourselves to that standard. Indeed, we are safer to reject or set aside our subjective experience, even if it remain a mystery and a puzzle, than to exalt it above the Word of God.

Let us look at a historical example of one person and the subjective, extra-Biblical experience that launched an American sect. We will learn a lot from this sect and its development.

Ann Lee was a robust and intelligent individual of the mid-1700's. A devoutly religious woman, she and her husband were part of what has been thought of as a small Quaker sect led by James and Jane Warley in Manchester, England. The Quakers were severely persecuted by the Anglican church for what was considered blasphemy against the Trinity, punishable by "a hole burned through through the tongue with a red-hot iron." Like the Quakers, the Warley group was loudly expressive and demonstrative in their worship. They were even known to have burst into a local church and disrupt a pastor's sermon. Several members along with Ann Lee were arrested and imprisoned at times.

Ann Lee's personal life was tormented. She had suffered four painful childbirth deliveries only to lose these same children to death in infancy or early childhood. She became increasingly terrified of marital relations, avoiding her marital bed as if it were "made of embers". She spent sleepless nights crying out for redemption by God, wasting away to a state of emaciated physical weakness. Reportedly, for nine years she searched for spiritual peace as she "struggled to deliver her soul from sin".

In the summer of 1770 while imprisoned for her faith, she had an 'open vision' of Adam and Eve in the act of sexual intercourse. From this vision, she formulated a new doctrine. She decided that it was not the eating of the forbidden fruit that caused the Fall of Man, but rather the love act between Adam and Eve. She was supposedly encouraged to spread this new knowledge by the Lord Jesus Himself, whom she said appeared to her in another vision to confirm her mission.

Ann Lee hurried from her prison cell to tell the members of her sect of these visions, proclaiming a new found sense of Christ dwelling within her. Leaders James and Jane Wardley stepped aside and accepted Ann Lee as their new leader based on her visions and testimony. It is thought that they were influenced by some Camisard, French Protestant prophecies of a Second Coming in the form of a woman, as well as the standard Quaker emphasis for "the 'inner light' (or 'inner word'), in which the Spirit speaks directly to the human mind."

In obedience to this vision and the resulting newly formed doctrine, Ann Lee spread her message and lived it as well. Early on, she taught her followers that all sexual relations or 'carnal knowledge' between men and women under any circumstances was a transgression. Strict celibacy was equated with full repentence, and confession of these 'sins' to same sex elders was the only way to guarantee Christian purity. Her loving husband parted from her, because she would not "live in the flesh with him." Ann's brother, William, also showed the same willingness to part from his family. He left his wife and son to join Ann Lee's group.

Ann Lee's revelations not only established her sect's emphasis on strict celibacy, but also contributed to their early emphasis of total devotion and love for her. Her frequent ecstatic utterences spoke of "walking with Jesus as her Lord and Lover," or described herself as His Bride.10 Her followers believed in a millenarianism that allowed Ann Lee (called, "mother" by her devotees), to have "the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in her."11This new sect called themselves the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing because they thought "the long-awaited Second Coming of Jesus Christ has happened in a mystical way in the heart of one of their own,"12 Ann Lee. In other words, through Ann Lee, they thought the thousand-year reign of Christ (heaven on earth) had begun!

There is another interesting part to this story. Early on, this group exhibited a wide range of Pentecostal-type expressionism plus much more, known as 'manifestations'. These included "extreme ecstatic, trance, and possession phenomena that few would believe unless they had seen them with their own eyes." Many of these seemed beyond human agency and were therefore seen as supernatural. Critics often attributed the manifestations to the devil, while the new religious group itself saw the spiritual phenomenon "as a sign of God's continuing workings in human history and the existence of an authority going beyond the purely man-made." They, "argued that their revivalist activities demonstrated that the old order was being shaken, both literally and metaphorically."13 They even had songs devoted entirely to their manifestations. Just look at the final stanzas of a song from the Shaker's very first hymn book, called Millenial Praises:

The Shakers, as they were nicknamed for their 'manifestation' of shaking, established many successful, peaceful communities up into the mid-1800's. In part, the success of their communities was probably due to the fact that they strived to live out Acts 2:44-45, which speaks of the early Christians holding "all things in common," in order to restore and vitalize the faith of early Christianity in their own day. Also, their much admired founder, Ann Lee, was described even by her critics as a capable, articulate, dynamic and loving person toward her followers, whom she called her "children." But with all these good intentions and qualities, are we to take subjective visions like Ann Lee's and the 'manifestations' found in her group as being from God?

The revivalist Joseph Meacham did.

By 1780, the Great Awakening revival of colonial America had waned. Meacham was disappointed with this turn of events and desired more revival. When he saw Ann Lee and her group's 'manifestations,' this 'new light' Baptist was so impressed that he merged his group of followers with hers.

It was not just the revivalist 'manifestations' that attracted him, though. Meacham was also enamored with the beliefs of the group. He left behind his former Baptist beliefs in order to take Shaker beliefs as his own. Indeed, it was John Meacham who wrote the first published Shaker pamphlet in 1790. In it, he concluded that the second appearance of Christ happened in 1747. This was the year that the Wardley's society was founded, whom Ann Lee had first joined in England. Indeed, it was clear Meacham agreed with the Wardley's interpretation of Ann Lee's ministry as we have already outlined, since the manuscripts written by him for Shaker readers discussed how appropriate it was for the appearance of Christ to be in female form. He also concluded in his writings that revivalist activities (manifestations) were a sign of God's presence and power among the Shakers.18

Meacham and the rest of Ann Lee's followers thought of Ann Lee as 'birthing' new children into a 'heaven on earth'. Shakers "came to believe that in her the Spirit of God had been in female form, just as they believed that Jesus the spirit of God had been incarnated in male form." Ann Lee was also thought of as "the queen of heaven, Christ's wife: and that God's elect must be born through her; yea, that Christ through her is born a second time."19 These beliefs of Ann Lee as a female savior became public to the world at large in 1808, when Benjamin Seth Young wrote the publication of the first Shaker doctrinal treatise called Testimony of Christ's Second Appearing.

Thus, although Ann Lee herself could not read or write because she was illiterate, the following things can be substantiated about the Shakers since their inception:

I appreciate his righteous indignation over any whitewash of the Shaker's history in order to include them as good examples of revivalist phenomenon. However, I want to more thoroughly examine the Shakers because there is much more to learn from them. I want to look at their 'revivals' from their beginning to their end to show how or if revivalist 'manifestations' can be blamed for their beliefs or for attracting their converts. In addition, we will follow their stunning development into frank spiritualism, decades after their beginning.
 

THE SHAKERS, MEACHAM, EDWARDS, AND THE GREAT AWAKENING

It is interesting to note that the Shakers attracted people like John Meacham with their spiritual phenomena upon the wane of the Great Awakening. In fact, historically they are noted for gathering in to their sect those believers who were disillusioned by either the Revival or by local area churches. The Shaker's simple 'sinless' living impressed the new converts to the Shaker sect. Also, Ann Lee reportedly healed the sick, had words of knowledge (or "read minds"), and had visions. She even 'prophesied' the coming of the new converts!

I do not want the reader to make determinations out of context, so let us take a brief look at the Great Awakening.

The Great Awakening (approximately 1740-1750) is considered by historians to be one of the most significant spiritual movements in colonial America. Prior to this revival, colonial settlers had lost their zeal and commitment for true Christianity. Perhaps this was in part due to the absence of the persecution they had endured in England, leaving them with no outward pressure to test their faith. This meant that they must maintain an inward commitment in the midst of the temptation to become lax. More and more, nominal Christianity became a painful reality as the colonists turned their hearts and minds toward materialistic acquisitions and the comfortable life of New England (later known as America). In addition, the colonists and their clergy were becoming swayed by an influence from Europe known as the Age of Reason. This was "characterized by belief in man's capacities for good, especially when man acted under the guidance of reason."

The leaders of the Great Awakening included independent yet sometimes loosely related preachers such as George Whitefield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, and his close friend David Brainard (missionary to the American Indians). These leaders implemented the three prominent aspects of the Great Awakening, and these aspects directly countered the spiritual malaise of both England and New England. The first was the contrast of the sacrament-oriented 'cold' orthodoxy of the English Anglican churches that revival leaders such as Whitefield denounced, compared to the Awakening's emphasis on the "individual Christian experience, especially the need for conversion." This was because the outward, formal forms of faith at the time were exposed as having a hollow reality when it came to changing people's lives. The second was that preachers like Whitefield, who were naturally not welcomed by the churches of formal religion he criticized in both England or New England, "often took to preaching in open fields, barns, or courthouses on both sides of the Atlantic." And finally, while the preachers of the Awakening did not abandon the typical Puritan emphasis on doctrine, outbursts of emotional reactions to God's workings on the heart was not discouraged or prevented. This was in direct contrast to the secular 'Age of Reason,' which presumed man to be governed and improved by reason alone.

Reportedly, even with the emphasis on proof of true conversion to the Christian faith (i.e., a practicing Christian with a changed life, as opposed to a nominal one in a life of sin) between 25,000 and 50,000 were added to the colonial Church during the Great Awakening. This represented more than a two-fold increase in Colonial days! Revival often started spontaneously because of the fervent prayer of a missionary, prayer groups, or a visiting preacher. Clearly the Great Awakening, with or without emotionalism or excesses, emphasized true conversion, and quite successfully at that.

Jonathan Edwards is probably the best-known, most often-quoted theologian, reporter, and 'apologetic,' of the Great Awakening. Concerning the current 'manifestation' controversy, both 'anti' and 'pro' renewalists have quoted him for their side. The truth is though, Edwards cannot be superficially treated because he will end up being easily misrepresented. For instance, although Edwards has been long thought of as a 'hell-fire' and damnation preacher by many, he "spoke as often of the love of God as of wrath." Also, he was supportive of the Awakening but cautiously so. His writings on the revivals were as empirical and objective as a scientist might be, while being "bothered somewhat by the shrieking, trances, and ecstatic deliriums that often accompanied the revivals."30

Edwards disturbance with extraordinary religious experience was probably both influenced and modified by some important factors. First, was his observance of the many true conversions to Christianity (I would presume this would include those who were nominal or fake Christians who became truly and whole-heartedly converted) Secondly, he had to consider what the critics of the Great Awakening of his time said and wrote. Finally and on a more personal note, he was impacted by the unexpected spiritual experiences of his beloved wife, Sarah Edwards.

During the month of January, 1742, Mrs. Edwards experienced an intense spiritual crisis that, although highly unusual for 'previous' Colonial New England, was not that unusual for the Great Awakening. Namely, she experienced incidences of "fainting, visions, and religious ecstacy." When this period ended, Sarah reported to her husband her newly found joy and assurance of God's love and favor. She then continued her life with a changed disposition of cheerfulness, peace, joy and love. Jonathan Edwards was so impressed by his wife's change that he included her story in his 1742 Some Present Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England, without specifically naming her.31

All in all, while the physical signs did not discredit the Awakening for Edwards, he felt that "some pastors placed an undue emphasis on outward signs." Therefore he was concerned for all leaders who overemphasized in this way, as he probably felt this distracted from the main emphasis, which should be changed lives for Christ (with proof of a godly life).

Although a very rational man himself, Jonathan Edwards "insisted that true religion is primarily rooted in the affections." By this he meant that true religion resides in a change of heart, and this included emotions as well as the rational mind. In his Treatise of the Religious Affections (1946), Edwards rigorously examined true conversion and carnal religiosity, which may provoke a lot of commotion without true spirituality. He focused on the heart being touched by God and being turned away from self-centeredness, and he defended the place or existence of emotions during this process and in the Christian life. This was his response to liberal critics like Charles Chauncy who sneered at the intense emotions and disorder that occurred in the Great Awakening.

Over all, the main controversy of the Great Awakening spiritual phenomenon was over emotional reactions to God's conviction or Presence, and the disorder these disruptions sometimes caused. Charles Chauncy, mention above, was one of Edward's most notable foes. He derided and ridiculed religious emotionalism. Agreeing with the Age of Reason, he thought that "reason and order, symbolized church ordinances, were more important than a stress on personal faith and assurance" (presumably of salvation). His downplay of personal assurance regarding salvation, eventually culminated or was justified by his belief that eternal damnation was not really eternal.35

Jonathan Edwards, however, remained well grounded in Scripture and 'orthodox' faith in his work and writings. He defended the emotional expression of God's touch on one's life, kept an eye toward true conversion, and also detailed "with painstaking scrutiny the kinds of religious emotions which are largely irrelevant to true spirituality." I can't think of a more even-handed treatment of the spiritual phenomenon in the Great Awakening than Edwards gave. To do anything else, he would have had to either embraced everything under the sun or despise it all.

We could fairly say that John Meacham probably held to the revivalist emphasis of his day regarding repentance, salvation, and life sanctification –but then departed from the Biblical standard and into Gnostic asceticism. And, instead of seeing emotionalism or ecstatic experiences as secondary or probably temporary once such experiences had done their duty of a changed heart, Meacham overemphasized spiritual phenomena in a way that Edwards would have disapproved of (citing the quote above where Edwards thought that some pastors over-emphasized). Jonathan Edwards had converted Meacham's father, yet if Jonathan Edwards ever influenced Meacham himself, it didn't show.

--------------
Footnote #10  pp. 26, Women, family, and utopia: communal experiments of the Shakers, the Oneida Community, and the Mormons, by Lawrence Foster. Taken from "Testimonies of Ann Lee," pp. 204-235
Footnote #11  Ibid. pp. 27
Footnote #12  pp. 4 The Story of the Shakers, by Flo Morse
Footnote #13  pp. 25 both quotes, Women, family, and utopia: communal experiments of the Shakers, the Oneida Community, and the Mormons, by Lawrence Foster
Footnote #14  pp. 90-91 The Story of the Shakers. This is from Hymn XII entitled, "The Shakers", in Part IV of Millenial Praises, published in 1813
Footnote #18  pp. 27 Women, family, and utopia: communal experiments of the Shakers, the Oneida Community, and the Mormons, by Lawrence Foster.
Footnote #19  Ibid pp. 27 this quoted from John F.C. Harrison, The Second Coming: Popular Millenarianism, 1780-1850
Footnote #22  pp. 62-64 The Torch of The Testimony by John W. Kennedy, first published 1965, reprinted by The SeedSowers, Beaumont, TX
Footnote #30  pp 6 Christian History Magazine, Volume IV, no 4 of 1985
Footnote #31  ibid. pp. 17
Footnote #35  ibid pp. 12

© Copyright 2000  by Teri Lee Earl All Rights Reserved