USA > Ohio > Franklin County > Columbus > Minutes of the session of the Ohio Miami Conference, successor to Miami Conference, of the United Methodist Church, 1970 > Part 19
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23
The movement was not dead, however. Similar meetings under another name were scheduled. Announcements appeared of a protracted woods meeting on August 12, 1859 on the old campground at the Five Mile Station; a basket or woods meeting in 1862 on the S. W. Ensley farm three and one-half miles north of Dayton; a basket meeting in Hiser's woods near the Miami Chapel Church on July 24, 1870 with services at 10:30 and 3:00; a meeting in the grove at State Road on July 13, 14, 1878. These were sometimes called grove meetings. An effort was made to control the environment of the meeting. It was stated concerning the Hiser's woods meeting that no grocery or ice cream saloon would be allowed on the ground.
The camp meeting made a comeback later. Lewisburg announced the first annual camp meeting on grounds one-fourth mile west of town on August 14, 1885 and con- tinuing for ten days. Tents could be rented. When this meeting was reported in the Telescope of September 16, 1885, the writer said, "It has baen many years since the United Brethren held a camp meeting in this Conference. The evangelist furnished the large tent and forty small family tents with cots and bedding. The attendance was good and the meeting religiously a success."
20 Miami Conference Minutes, 1874, 7.
21 Miami Conference Minutes, 1876, 23.
22 Miami Conference Minutes, 1877, 8.
159
CONFERENCE HISTORY
Union City held a similar meeting for ten days at the fairground in 1885. Lewis- burg held a second meeting in 1886 with Evangelist R. J. Parrett and several Confer- ence ministers. Parertt also conducted a meeting at the Greenville fairgrounds in 1886. The announcement said, "Tent rental $3.00, furnish own bedding. Single admission 10c, season admission, single 50c, family $1.50. Those without means free."
The Lewisburg meeting continued for several years. E. S. Lorenz was in charge in 1887. Seven Mile also held a similar meeting.
The camp meeting as known in the 1800's did not continue as a significant part of the Conference program in the 1900's. It met a need but its day was done.
CHAPTER 16 THE CHURCH AND SOCIAL ISSUES
Though the so-called social gospel movement did not concern the church until near the end of the nineteenth century, the Church of the United Brethren in Christ and the Miami Conference were vitally challenged by several social issues very early in their history. These are discussed briefly in this chapter.
Slavery
The United Brethren Church was officially opposed to slavery from the beginning. Section seven of the 1815 Discipline says, "Nor shall involuntary servitude be tolerated in any way in the church." This stand is repeated in Section thirty-two, "All slavery in every sense of the word is totally prohibited, and shall in no way be tolerated in our church." A resolution adopted in 1821 said, among other things, that any member who held slaves must either free them or give up his membership in the church. It said also, "in no case shall a member of our society be permitted to sell a slave."
The Miami Conference strongly supported these policies though slavery had its proponents among the clergy and laity.
The editor of the Religious Telescope was a vocal opponent of slavery and per- mitted his paper to be used for the heated discussions of the issue. Samuel Hiestand, a Miami Conference minister, writing in 1838, proposed that the present type of aboli- tion material be excluded from the paper. His solution to the race and slavery problem was to establish a colony for freed Negroes in one of the territories of the United States.1 A resolution was adopted, however, by the Miami Conference in 1840 insisting that "the columns of the Religious Telescope be and remain open for the impartial investi- gation of the evils of slavery as it exists in America." 2
The trustees of the paper acted in October 1838 to close the columns on the slavery issue. This was supported by the 1841 General Conference, but in 1845 the restrictions were removed.
That slavery was a controversial issue in the Conference is indicated by the fact that in 1844 charges were brought against six ministers of tolerating indirectly the cause of slavery on the ground of expediency. A committee was appointed to examine them. Four were entirely cleared, one confessed to fear to preach against the sin of slavery, one pleaded guilty. The latter was permitted to stay in the church provided he did not vindicate pro-slavery views. ª
1 Religious Telescope, IV, (February 7, 1838), 9.
3 Miami Conference Minutes, 1840, 65, 67.
3 Miami Conference Minutes, 1844, 124.
160
CONFERENCE HISTORY
The Conference adopted a resolution in 1846 that it be the duty of all ministers to use their influence to check the progress of the spirit and principle of pro-slavery and especially to keep it out of the church. Three years later the Conference further acted requiring each minister to preach at least one anti-slavery sermon during the year.
The General Conference renewed, in 1849, the rule that slaveholding members be expelled from the church.
The Miami Conference continued to oppose slavery by resolution and action. It resolved in 1851 that the fugitive slave law was in derogation of our free institution, an unwarrantable encroachment upon the sovereignty of the states, a violation of na- tural and revealed religion, an assumption of legislative power without constitutional authority, and a monstrous exhibition of injustice, cruelty and oppression. These very strong words were written by R. Norris and W. J. Shuey. 4
Though some members of the Conference frowned upon action relating to a social problem, the majority favored this approach, for in 1855 a resolution was adopted that the pulpit should be used for the correction of not only individual but also of national sins. " This was followed up the next year when a lengthy anti-slavery resolu- tion was adopted using such expressions as, "in favor of liberty and the final overthrow of slavery," "to vote against slavery and not to vote for pro-slavery candidates," "speak firmly and boldly in favor of universal freedom and denounce the institution of slavery as a moral and national sin." "
As government action against slavery increased, the Conference said in 1860 that the time had fully come when all Christians should exert their whole influence to hurl from power by measures consistent with the gospel all who work at and bow down to the iniquity of human slavery. 7
After the Civil War began, the Conference turned to the larger question of the state of the country. To illustrate this, we quote from resolutions adopted in 1861, 1862, and 1863.
Whereas the institution of American slavery has involved the country in a most bloody war and overspread many portions of it with a reign of terror and devastation, Therefore, Resolved first that we will devoutly pray that our Heavenly Father will overrule the present conflict for the extermina- tion of slavery in all the land, and that God may hear us as we do heartily repent of our national sins, especially the sin of human slavery.
Second, Resolved that in view of the rebellion now existing in the South against the Government of the United States, it is our duty to sustain the Government by all lawful and necessary means.
Third, Resolved that in this time of our peril it is a violation of the law of God as well as the claims of our country to sustain by our arguments or votes men for responsible posts who do not give an unconditional ad- herence to the Government in its present struggle for its existence. 8
The resolution adopted unanimously the following year contained these state- ments, "our abhorrence of the southern rebellion," "convinced that it was instigated by the slave power for the subversion of constitutional liberty and the setting up of a
4 Miami Conference Minutes, 1851, 300, 302.
5 Miami Conference Minutes, 1855, not numbered.
6 Miami Conference Minutes, 1856, 15.
7 Miami Conference Minutes, 1860, not numbered.
8 Miami Conference Minutes, 1861, not numbered.
161
CONFERENCE HISTORY
slave oligarchy," "that we the members of the Miami Conference of the U.B. in Christ earnestly solicit the entire membership for the success of the Federal Army in bringing about a speedy overthrow of the rebels against our government." "
The following is a summary from the 1864 resolution.
a. Evidence is constantly accumulating as the war progresses that the rebellion was inaugurated in the immediate interest of slavery and is being prosecuted on the part of the South for that purpose.
b. There should be no peace based on a compromise with rebellion and the slave power, calling for unconditional submission on the part of the rebels.
c. Called for universal, unconditional emancipation, and destruction of pro-slavery domination.
d. That President Lincoln ought to receive the affection of the American people.
e. Condemned those who support party and party leaders who speak and act in concert with the avowed enemies of freedom and the Government. 10
The Conference in 1864 rebuked Congress for refusing to approve an amendment abolishing slavery and supported the president in his efforts to free slaves. It is interest- ing to note that in that year a collection of $18 was taken up at the last evening session to send the Telescope to soldiers in the Union Army.
During the whole war period the spirit of the church reflected much bitterness and a call for punishment and retribution toward the southern rebels. In 1865 the Confer- ence rejoiced in the peace but mourned at the death of President Lincoln. However, a resolution adopted in that session said, "Inflict upon the authors of the rebellion such punishment as may be suited to the magnitude of their crimes and as may cause their deep criminality and wickedness to appear in their true character to coming generations." This was accompanied by an offer of prayer and support for President Andrew Johnson.11
An action of the Conference in 1867 supported the constitutional amendment which guaranteed the right of suffrage to colored men.
That we are in favor of the political equality of all men before the law without distinction of color or race and that we will labor by discussion and ballot to secure the adoption of the proposed amendment to the constitution of the state of Ohio, guaranteeing to colored men the right of suffrage. 12
One more report on the state of the country was presented in 1868. This called for equal human rights, strongly opposed slavery in any form, but still called for ap- propriate punishment of the southern rebels. At the two following annual sessions of the Conference a report was given by a committee on Moral Reform. The emphasis in these reports was on solving social problems and bettering community life through preaching the gospel and a regenerated heart and sanctified life.
The Alcohol and Temperance Problem
In the earliest days of United Brethren history it did not seem unusual for some church members and even clergymen to be engaged in the liquor business and to use alcohol as a beverage. Others were strongly opposed.
When the General Conference met in Fairfield County, Ohio in 1821, George
" Miami Conference Minutes, 1862. not numbered.
10 Miami Conference Minutes, 1863, not numbered.
11 Miami Conference Minutes, 1865, 17.
12 Miami Conference Minutes, 1867, 17.
162
CONFERENCE HISTORY
Benedum, from the Miami Conference, introduced a resolution "that no preacher shall be allowed to carry on a distillery." The motion was amended and adopted reading, "That neither preacher nor lay member shall be allowed to carry on a distillery and that distillers be requested to cease the business."
The resolution urged the General Conference delegates to present this action to their annual conferences and to lay it as a duty upon the preachers to labor against the evils of intemperance.
One year earlier in the Conference session, Christian Hiestand was expelled from the communion because of drunkeness and other bad conduct.
When the delegates returned from the General Conference, a resolution was offered in the 1821 Miami Conference session "that no preacher should keep a corn-distillery." This motion was tabled, however. 13
Elijah Slider was accused, in the 1832 session, of intemperance in the use of spirituous liquors. He was permitted to stand in his former relationship, however, after confession and promise to reform.
The question was raised in 1842 whether or not meeting houses should be used for temperance lectures. A resolution was adopted in that year recommending to all societies that they use every prudent measure to advance the interests of temperance. 14
Ministers were urged to preach temperance sermons and some special days were designated for this purpose.
Any contribution to the distilling industry met opposition. The Conference voted in 1858 that it is partaking of other men's sins and is therefore inconsistent with our profession for a minister or lay member to sell or barter knowingly an article of com- merce to distillers which is intended to be applied in any way to the manufacture of ardent spirits. 15 A similar resolution was adopted in 1873.
Ten years later the campaign against intemperance became more continuous and persistent. A lengthy resolution on temperance was passed unanimously in 1868. It called for cooperation with temperance societies, the organization of such societies, the distribution of literature and the organization of Sabbath Schools into temperance so- cieties. 16 Added to these in the following two years was the request to preach, lecture and work against intemperance, and not to support for office anyone who was not a sober man and a friend of temperance. In 1874 a statement in the Resolutions Com- mittee report at the Conference was an expression of joy in the Women's Temperance Movement. The Conference recommended a few years later that only unfermented wine be used for sacramental purposes when it is available. In 1878 the Conference took a stand favoring legal prohibition of the liquor traffic. 17
A special resolution on temperance in 1883 called for support of ministers and people for an amendment to the Ohio constitution prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. 18 Following remarks in the 1886 session by Mrs. F. W. Leiter, state superintendent of the department of scientific education of the W.C.T.U., the Conference voted to urge the Ohio legislature to adopt a law compelling scientific
13 Miami Conference Minutes, 1821, Reichert's translation, 32.
14 Miami Conference Minutes, 1842, 94.
15 Miami Conference Minutes, 1858, not numbered.
16 Miami Conference Minutes, 1868, 11.
17 Miami Conference Minutes, 1878, 35.
18 Miami Conference Minutes, 1883, 41.
163
CONFERENCE HISTORY
temperance in the common schools. 1º The Conference also joined with other church people in the state in an effort to have the state Dow law so amended as to prevent saloons from opening on Sunday. The state legislature so acted and also voted to extend the local option feature to the townships. A Miami Conference minister, G. P. Macklin, was nominated by the Prohibitionists in 1893 for the office of governor of Ohio. 20
In the decade following, a temperance committee reported in most annual Confer- ence sessions but the action was routine and repetitive. The two most frequent em- phases were support of the Anti-Saloon League and other temperance organizations and local option elections.
The Conference attitudes and actions concerning the liquor traffic during the twentieth century are recorded in Chapters 10 and 13.
The Secret Order Controversy
The Miami Conference gave some leadership in the secret order controversy which so tragically disrupted the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. The issue came very much to the fore when the Conference was in session in 1826 in the log church known as Clear Creek Chapel near Springboro. John Brown, Alfred Carder, John McNamar, Aaron Farmer, and William Ballard had joined the Masons in 1825 or earlier. Joseph Ball, who had transferred from the Baptist Church, was also a Mason.
The Discipline of the denomination did not, at that time, contain a rule against ministers and church members belonging to secret orders.
The discussions in 1826 were based partly on 2 Corinthians 6:44 ff. Bishop Christian Newcomer, the presiding officer, strongly opposed ministers belonging to such secret worldly organizations in which he said many, if not most, of the members made no profession of Christianity. Following sharp and exciting debate the following reso- lution was adopted.
Whereas we have members of this Conference with us who belonging to the Mason fraternity, we feel a disposition to bear with them as Brethren so long as they do not attend Masonic lodges any further than they can desist and act conscientiously, and if any of our Brethren should hereafter join said fraternity, they shall not only be barred of the privilege of taking charge of a circuit or any authority in any official capacity, but shall thereby expel themselves from the communion and further no preacher shall encourage any of our members in joining the Masonic fraternity nor those who are Masons to join our Society. 21
A similar resolution was adopted by the other conferences under Bishop New- comer's leadership.
This resolution was presented to the 1829 General Conference and as a result of action taken a statement opposing secret orders was written into the Discipline. The new constitution for the church, prepared in 1837, reflected the anti-secret order senti- ment. The constitution was ratified by the conferences and was fully confirmed in 1841. Section 7 stated, "There shall be no connection with secret combinations."
Under pressure the Miami Conference ministers mentioned above either left the
19 Miami Conference Minutes, 1886, 32.
20 Miami Conference Minutes, 1893, 63.
21 Miami Conference Minutes, 1826, Reichert's translation, 58.
164
CONFERENCE HISTORY
church or separated from the Masons and remained in or returned to the church. Joseph Ball was expelled in 1828 because he joined the Masons.
In 1842 L. Hadder was charged with free-Masonry. After some investigation, however, the conclusion was reached that he was not a member but was attending meet- ings to discover whether or not new church members were attending the lodges. The charge against him was dismissed.
William Collins was excluded from the church in 1845 in consequence of con- necting himself with the Masonic Fraternity. The following year B. P. Wheat promised to keep silent about Masonry at the request of the Conference. S. J. Browne gave his word that he would not attend lodge meetings or processions in order to avoid disci- pline by the Conference.
The Conference voted in 1848, and renewed the action several times, that it was inconsistent for any of our ministers to invite into our pulpits any person to officiate who adhered to secret societies. The prevailing attitude during this session was further indicated by these statements, "All secret societies are contrary to the religion of Jesus Christ as also the principles of civil and religious liberty," "A violation of the law of Christ as laid down in the New Testament." 22
Some loosening of the strict attitude of opposition in the Miami Conference was evident in a resolution adopted by the General Conference in 1849, "That in the estimation of this General Conference the members of the Miami Conference in general did not use their influence against Secret Combinations as required by our Discipline."
The majority sentiment of the Conference, however, was still opposition. This was reflected in statements and actions in each annual session. During the examination of preachers in 1858, R. Ross was passed but on condition that he acknowledge to the Conference that he had deceived the church in joining the order of Free Masonry and concealing his action, and that he express sorrow for having done this. 33
A very strong resolution was adopted in that year by a vote of 38 to 2.
Whereas it is inconsistent with our profession as a church and contrary to the spirit of the Discipline for our ministers to sympathize with secret combinations, Therefore, Resolved that any minister who by word or act gives countenance to any Secret Society, justly subjects himself to suspicion respecting his integrity to the church and faithfulness in the execution of Discipline. 24
A letter from S. L. Downey of the Five Mile Station appeared in the Religious Telescope on February 16, 1859 in which he said,
I have had some very hard rowing since Conference. Secret combinations were about to take possession of this station. I was threatened to be driven from the station; and if I stayed, not to be supported, if I touched the secret den. But I did my duty and things are on the look-up. 25
Two years later Mr. Downey wrote concerning the Zion Church on the Mt. Pleasant Circuit.
A few years ago the minister let down the bars so low that two Free- masons came in and they were kept in until I came on the circuit. They were
22 Miami Conference Minutes, January, 1848, 228.
23 Miami Conference Minutes, 1858, 4.
24 Miami Conference Minutes, 1858, 5, 7, 8.
23 S. L. Downey, Religious Telescope, IX (February 16, 1859), 95.
165
CONFERENCE HISTORY
out. I hope and pray that the ministers of the Miami Annual Conference will forever keep the door closed against that secret enemy of ours. 26
When the ministers assembled in Conference, however, it became apparent that there was so-called disloyalty to the secret order cause. By a 27 to 6 vote in 1867 a resolution was adopted favoring a modification of the rule on secrecy.
That it is the sense of the Miami Annual Conference that the rule of the Church relating to secret organizations should be so modified as to be advisory instead of prohibitory and that, at the proper time, we will mem- orialize our next General Conference to make such modification. 27
The reaction to this brought a different type of action the next year.
That our antipathy and opposition to secret societies remains unabated; and our action of last year was based on the belief that by such modification of our rule the Church could more effectively combat this evil, and save many who have fallen into this snare. Still stand by the rule in the Discipline. 28
The presiding elder, in his report to the 1875 Conference session, mentioned prob- lems at Summit Street and Ithaca on the secret order question. The Summit Street situation indicated how even minor matters were blown up to major proportions on this explosive question. In the quarterly conference I. N. Zehring and B. F. Arnold were expelled for belonging to secret societies. However, because the chairman did not ask for a negative vote on the motion, an appeal was made to the Conference. When the appeal was heard, the quarterly conference action was declared null and void. 29
Another event which indicated the rising division which was developing on the question was a laymen's meeting held on February 27, 1877. This was called to con- sider a possible memorial to General Conference on the secret order question. The com- mittee which was appointed to prepare a statement requested that no action be taken. W. Dillon, speaking for those opposed to secret orders, claimed that the Conference was rigged. 30
A strong feeling was developing during the late 1870's that the church stand on secret societies should be modified. Yet the conviction was expressed in 1879 that, "the spirit of intolerance among those who differ in opinion, especially on the question of church policy, is one of our greatest dangers as a church." 31
The General Conference appointed a commission on revision of the Confession of Faith and Constitution. The Miami Conference in 1885 asked for clarification of the term secret combinations and promised support to this commission. Several members of the Miami Conference, lay and clergy, were on the commission. Rev. S. M. Hippard was chairman. The results of its work were reported to the General Conference in 1889. The section on secret orders was radically changed. It stated, "We declare that all secret combinations which infringe upon the rights of those outside their organiza- tion, and whose principles and practices are injurious to the Christian character of their members, are contrary to the Word of God, and that Christians ought to have no con- nection with them. The General Conference shall have power to enact such rules of discipline with respect to such combinations as in its judgment it may deem proper."
26 Ibid., XI (April 10, 1861), 125.
27 Miami Conference Minutes, 1867, 9.
28 Miami Conference Minutes, 1868, 10.
29 Miami Conference Minutes, 1875, 20.
30 Religious Telescope, XLIII (March 14, 1877), 195.
31 Miami Conference Minutes, 1879, 34.
166
CONFERENCE HISTORY
Twenty members of the Conference voted against the report and fifteen of these, including Bishop Milton Wright withdrew to form the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Old Constitution). None of these were Miami Conference delegates. In the 1889 Miami Conference "it was stated that Rev. Aaron Zehring, a member of this body, was cooperating actively with those who seceded from the General Conference at York, Pennsylvania in May last and, therefore having irregularly withdrawn from the church his name was ordered released from the Conference roll." 32 The Conference was not directly affected in any major way by this division in the church. Its members were largely in harmony with the more liberal view expressed in the new constitution.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.