USA > Pennsylvania > Change and challenge: a history of the Church of the Brethren in the southern district of Pennsylvania, 1940-1972 > Part 3
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 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
The Church of the Brethren, tempted in recent decades by the authority of legislation, has consistently refused the use of such power. In 1922, a request came before the Annual Conference asking for an endorsement of the various doctrines listed on "The Brethren Card". This brief statement of practices and beliefs long published in The Gospel Messenger failed to receive the endorsement of the conference. The question was referred to the Tract Committee without adoption. The same conference made it clear that no church board or committee has the right to endorse any doctrinal position "when the church has not put itself on record on the doctrine involved".32
Some congregations sensed an opponent in the Theory of Evolution and raised a query about it before the 1929 Annual Conference. The query asked about the propriety of teaching such a theory. The reply from the conference was that it was "only a theory". The reply further stated:
"Neither should we ask for legislation against any of these theories, for it would have little effect on the teaching of them."33 The Church of the Brethren has consistently turned away from the practice of making legalistic pronouncements within recent decades.
In the nineteenth century some church fathers tried to make the Minutes of the Annual Meeting binding on members. This effort also failed. The spirit of investigation and honest criticism have kept open the door for new light. So even in matters of conscience, the denomination has decided that it cannot legislate for the individual. The Conference Resolutions of 1951 stated:
ten
"We deem the overruling of conscience wrong. We therefore cannot legislate for the conscience of anyone, but we plead with our people to break with the war system at the point where their con- sciences, enlightened by the New Testament, compel them."34
The Church of the Brethren also began to find it needed to change its methods of sharing the Christian Gospel. For many years, the evangelistic program of the denomination centered in "evangelistic meetings." In some measure, these meetings were a reflection of the influence of revival- ism on the denomination. Revivalism had been a feature of religious life in New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania at the beginning of the nineteenth century. One must not discount the influence of this method, for it gave rise to such reform movements as Abolition Societies, Missionary Associations and Temperance Leagues.35
As many congregations practiced revivals, however, the weaknesses of the method became apparent. They often generated interest and enthusiasm which did not endure. They apparently were emotionally- toned, sometimes exhibitionistic, and too often purely seasonal.
Levi K. Ziegler and Galen Kilhefner issued a joint paper as Regional Executives in 1945. This paper discussed the importance and the place of evangelism in the life of the denomination. The paper was written because much criticism was then being directed against revivals by mem- bers of the church. In reply, these executives wrote:
"Those of us who have grown up in the Church of the Brethren will hardly agree that the meetings we attended were the the unduly emotional type.
"But let us not think that evangelism is primarily method; it is more a matter of spirit than of technique, and the final results will depend largely upon the power and the blessing of God.36
In recent decades, complaints have been raised against the seasonal and occasional type of church evangelism. Very justly these people claim that the evangelistic service has not contributed to the growth of the district or the brotherhood. In spite of the denomination's stated prefer- ence for evangelism, the results would seem to indicate the denomination has not really been evangelistic. The figures on church growth seem to indicate evangelistic efforts have not brought many people into church membership. A statement in the Church of the Brethren Leader says:
"Even though the church must continue to witness to and evangel- ize individuals, it must recognize the limitations of this method in bringing about changes in the power structures that affect the masses of people."37
A review of the gains of the brotherhood and of the district over the past few decades would seem to show there is cause for concern:
Year
Brotherhood Membership
District Membership 7323
1940
173,783
8611
1950
185,088
1960
200,217
9636
1970
182,614
9519
The period through which we have come is one which has seen nine- teenth century values shaken and shattered. The cult of science has given rise to a secular faith which has led to the questioning of all things previously held sacred. Organized religion has steadily retreated from the strong position it once held in the political, social and moral realms. The factors which have brought change have compelled some Christian leaders to speak of "the new search for new patterns of Christian witness."
On occasion, someone will suggest a return to values formerly asso- ciated with the rural Brethren life. An article entitled, "Brethren in the New World"38 does just this. It calls for productivity, thrift, sobriety in
eleven
living and physical strength, all born from the fact that as "a people we still have some of our roots in the soil."
Martin E. Marty, a contemporary theologian, in an assessment of the denomination, made this observation:
"Wherever you serve, you must major in your particularities. We are not interested in how much like everybody else you can be. Rather, we want you to know what salt, what leaven, what color, what texture you have to present to the whole of Christendom You have an influence all out of proportion to your membership. This can continue. If you are distinctive and intelligible, you are in business."39
SOCIAL AWAKENING AND COOPERATION
The period between the Civil War and World War I was one of decisive change for America. As the nation became more urban it also underwent cultural change. New discoveries in the various sciences led to the theory of evolution and created a crisis in men's thoughts. Liberal- ism and Fundamentalism made their appearances in religious circles at the same time. Fundamentalism appeared about 1875.40 Liberalism took its rise with John Fiske's volume, Outline of Cosmic Philosophy (1874).
American Christianity has always displayed some degree of diversity. The American continent was settled by sectarian and ethnic groups which had difficulty in winning acceptance in their own lands. Dissent and diversity became characteristics of American life. The temperament of religious life was often a reflection of the temperament of the political life. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, interdenomina- tional cooperation was frequently practiced. A survey of the congrega- tional histories of this volume will disclose how often the churches of the Southern District shared union church houses with other denominations. Such cooperation corresponded to an era of good feeling in national politics.
This spirit of cooperation gave way to a period of sectarian controver- sies at a time when sectionalism was rife within the nation. Doctrinal debates were common in public halls and schoolhouses. Coarse invectives sometimes filled religious journals and controversy over denominational differences was carried into the pulpit. These controversies aided in the promotion of church and state separation in our century and led to serious problems of church and state in education.
Fundamentalism began when the American Protestant churches rejected Moodyites revivalism in favor of social reform. 41 It was an outgrowth of Evangelical Protestantism, a form of Christianity widely prevalent in the nineteenth century. A literalistic interpretation of the Scriptures was adopted by its followers. Primary importance was given to individual conversion, most frequently as a crisis experience. The Protestant ethic of hard work, thrift, piety and sobriety were a part of this religious culture. The Fundamentalist continued to cling to the view of the Reformers that the visible church is a community which is the custodian and expositor of the Bible.
Liberalism represents a resurgence of Christianity in a new direction. It tried to approach problems in the spirit of openness, tolerance and with the desire to follow truth no matter where it led. It rejected the undue emphasis on individual morality and began to stress, in addition, the individual's social responsibilities. If Fundamentalism emphasized in- dividualism, Liberalism emphasized equality and gave impetus to the developing American Progressivism of the early twentieth century.
twelve
As the nation grew wealthier, the conservative forces in religion adopted a doctrine of stewardship to meet the problems. Conservative forces in Christianity turned to instruction and worship as their primary business. To the more unfortunate persons of the community there was an additional obligation to provide charity and evangelization.42 The religious progressives felt this approach was not sufficient: they began a call for a Social Gospel.
The Social Gospel was a liberal movement of the early decades of the twentieth century with pacifism as a central core. Charles M. Sheldon actually helped to promote knowledge of the Social Gospel by his best- selling book, In His Steps. This book alone was highly influential in inspiring a desire for reform in Society. Walter Rauschenbusch, in his volume, A Theology For The Social Gospel (1917), forwarded the view that it was social sin that was most devastating to morality, whether in the form of war, oppression or intemperance. He felt man must make a frontal attack on the Kingdom of Evil in order to build the Kingdom of God.
The Social Gospel movement eventually was superseded by the move- ment called Neo-Orthodoxy. Under Reinhold Niebuhr, Neo-Orthodox contenders continued many of the elements associated with the Social Gospel. The movement stressed the tendency of man to fall prey to pride.
Progressivism in American life reached its floodtide about 1812. By this same year, the Fundamentalist dissociated himself with the Liberal's views and stood at sword's point with the social reformers. The term "Fundamentalism" was coined about the year 1910 to define those who opposed the Social Gospel movement. Fundamentalism began to resort to a "list of fundamentals" or "essentials" to test the validity of Christian experience. In 1909, twelve booklets appeared under the general title, The Fundamentals. The reader could not miss their meaning. To be a Chris- tian one must accept without reservation five points of view-the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the physical resurrection of Christ, the Substitutionary Atonement and the imminent Second Coming of Christ. Nearly 3,000,000 copies of these booklets were published and distributed.
The controversy which developed between Fundamentalism and Liberalism simply accented the brokenness of American Christianity. The struggle between these two religious points of view came at a time when many forms of intolerance were rife within the nation. It occurred also at a time when small-town and countryside Protestantism was being vigorously assaulted. By the end of the 1920's, the Fundamentalist and the Liberal succeeded simply in antagonizing each other so that each developed his own colleges and seminaries. Christianity continued to give the impression that it was both diverse and divided.
An official recognition of the Social Gospel was symbolized by the formation of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America in 1908. The social awakening of religion had now been given an ecumenical form in The Social Creed of the Churches adopted by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America. This paper was the Methodist social creed. Opposition to the Council was furious. The Fundamentalist groups opposed it so intensely that William Jennings Bryan, himself a religious conservative, was persuaded to speak in favor of the newly-created council. He supported the council in 1919 in a speech before the Baltimore Minis- terial Union and endorsed its work.
For a period of many decades the issue of liberal versus fundamental was raised by Ministerial Boards in various Southern Pennsylvania con- gregations. A letter of 1941 raised the question, "Is he fundamental or
thirteen
liberal?" when a candidate was proposed for a pastorate. Many lay leaders remained suspicious of any attempt to apply the Christian message to such areas of life as politics, business or international relations. There were also suspicions lest a pastor might be inclined to "ride a doctrinal hobby". Most pastoral candidates were thoroughly interviewed concerning their theological views before any recommendations were made to congre- gational councils.
The National Council of Churches of Christ in America was officially constituted on November 29, 1950. Twenty-nine denominations and eight interdenominational agencies met with the delegates in the constituting convention at Cleveland, Ohio.34 Dr. Norman J. Baugher, General Secre- tary of the Brotherhood Staff, became a vice-president of the Council in 1960 and continued to serve in this capacity until 1966. The Church of the Brethren was committed to inter-church work whether at the local or the international level. A report of 1966 stated:
"The percentage of Church of the Brethren ministers employed on staffs of Councils of Churches was the highest of fifteen denomin- ations surveyed."
In 1948 the World Council of Churches held its first meeting in Amsterdam. This meeting was called "the greatest gathering of Protes- tantism since the Reformation". The Council was formed to bring to- gether the various forms of church cooperation already in existence. Gustave Weigel said of the Council that it is "a most interesting phenom- enon because it is the modern Protestant's impressive attempt to overcome the inner drive toward fragmentation."
At the time the Fundamentalist groups had their beginnings, some people among them expressed the hope for an organizational structure which could bring them into a united body. The one organization which has an undisputed claim to leadership in the Fundamentalist movement was organized in 1919 as the result of numerous war-time conferences. It is known as the world's Christian Fundamentals Association, and was organized by such persons as Reuben A. Torrey, Amzi C. Dixon and Wil- liam Riley.44
The tendency toward division has never been fully resolved among the Fundamentalists. Most, however, identify themselves with two large blocs: The American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) formed in 1941, or the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) formed in 1942. These organizations are clearly the Fundamentalist counterparts of the National Council of Churches of Christ in America. The ACCC has been most militant against the National Council and often meets at the same time and in the same city for its conventions. It often conducts protests and picketing activities against the NCC and its program.
In recent years the National Association of Evangelicals has become outspoken on national and international affairs. It does not actively fight the National Council of Churches. In 1964, for example, the NAE called for strong civil rights legislation and for the desegregation of all of its member churches.45 Delegates from forty different conservative denomin- ations were told that the day is past when the Evangelicals can remain isolationists from the ecumenical movement. In 1959, Dr. Carl Henry, editor of Christianity Today, pointed out a weakness of the Evangelical movement: "it has lost too much of the passion for Christian unity."46
A comparison of the Evangelicals with modern Liberals reveals the two groups are edging closer to each other in many areas, including social action and personal salvation. The Evangelicals have called for more action against poverty and the Council of Churches of Christ in America has called for more concern about personal salvation. The Church of the Brethren has sent representatives to the meetings of the National
fourteen
Association of Evangelicals. Harold Z. Bomberger, Harold S. Martin, William L. Gould and J. Richard Gottshall have attended such meetings.
The movement toward cooperative Christianity is an effort to dis- cover the common faith and life of Christians everywhere. The effect is to break down the barriers which have often isolated Christians from each other. The experiences of World War II awakened Christians to the fact they are one and that this unity transcends political ideologies or national boundaries. The problems of war-prisoners, of refugees and of reconstruction served to elicit a deepened sense of world-wide com- munity among Christians. In a real sense, the war revealed the church as the only true world community.
Many sincere people have discovered Protestantism has been too nationalistic, too sectarian and too individualistic in its approach to world problems. Christians are discovering they can appreciate the common Christian core in the faith of others without sacrificing their own denomin- ational heritage. If we were all the same, what could we possibly con- tribute to each other?
CHAPTER TWO:
CONFERENCE, REGION AND DISTRICT
The Annual Conference is the gathering in which Brethren exchange their views and conduct the business of the denomination. Representa- tives of the districts and the congregations gather to discuss vital issues confronting the church. It is a conference for everyone. All age groups, all social classes, all kinds of professional and lay people meet on a plane of equality to conduct the affairs of the denomination. Such is the interest that attendances frequently number ten thousand or more persons.
The conference is unique among church gatherings because of its ability to involve so many people in the decision-making processes. It is democracy at work, the "Brethren Town Meeting." H. L. Hartsough once commented upon its uniqueness :
"Brethren do not realize how unique is our plan for Annual Conference. Likely there is not another church group in American Christianity in which everyone of its members is urged to attend its conference. It is just this which has maintained a fellowship rather than developing hierarchy ... The conference becomes a democratic family conference."1
The editor recalls an incident from the floor of the conference which illustrates its nature. There had been some division of opinion concerning an issue which appeared for discussion. One delegate suggested that the matter might be presented to each congregation for a vote. At this point, Dr. Calvert N. Ellis reminded the delegates that the Church of the Brethren is a representative democracy and not a pure democracy. The final authority on all matters relating to the life of the brotherhood is invested in the delegate body of the Annual Conference.
The conference has generally been marked by a high degree of in- formality, a great warmth of fellowship and considerable freedom for individual expression. The church has practiced participatory democracy many years before the current age discovered it. The good moderator of the conference does not need to rely heavily upon Robert's Rules of Order. Members of the church are given a hand in managing their own religious destinies. This right gives the individual an increased sense of worth.
fifteen
As the denomination increased in size and began to extend its minis- tries, some modifications came into the nineteenth century practices. At one time in the history of the church all members in attendance at the conference had the right to vote. The Standing Committee in the 1800s was elected only after the Brethren arrived at their meeting places.2 No official action was taken to grant credentials to delegates until 1919. Since the late nineteenth century, the Annual Conference has been a delegate conference.
The Church of the Brethren belongs to the congregational form of church government. Congregationalism began to flourish wherever Christian people discovered the individualistic implications of the Protestant Reformation. The first Congregational Churches in New England devel- oped a system of government under laymen because there was a shortage of ministers. Each congregation was self-contained with the right to elect its own minister and to conduct its own affairs.
In similar fashion in Colonial America, early Brethren churches were autonomous. The need for fellowship between the members of the con- gregations led to interchurch meetings. It was this visitation among early Brethren which helped to preserve the unity of the church. Only when Count Zinzendorf threatened this unity by calling for German Synods in eastern Pennsylvania in 1741 and 1742 did the Brethren organize their Annual Meetings.
The Annual Conference through the years continued to exercise a consolidating influence upon the life of the denomination. In the early 1800s, when Brethren were living in isolated communities, the Annual Meeting provided an occasion for bringing them together. D. L. Miller once commented upon this characteristic:
"The social feature of the meeting does more to unify our people and to bind them together in the bonds of love and peace, in the unity of the Spirit, than does the business of the conference."3
A Committee appointed to study the Annual Conference reported in 1968 that the conference is of major importance in the life of the church. One of the reasons given for this importance:
"it serves as a means of building unity, fellowship, and under- standing among Brethren as laity and clergy, age and youth, urban and rural people trying to discover the mission of the church in today's world."4
The same report defined the conference as "the highest legislative authority in determining the polity of the church. It is the final source of appeal in adjusting difficulties and in solving problems which arise in the church." Little by little the Annual Conference assumed an authorita- tive role until the churches looked to the conference for the kind of corpor- ate decisions which would direct the life and work of the brotherhood.5 In more recent decades, however, the conference has resorted to a rule by love rather than by law. Earlier conferences answered queries by saying: "Considered that this is not agreeable with the Gospel and should not be done."
In recent decades the conference has been more permissive with respect to congregations. It has more often suggested than prescribed. One now frequently reads in the Minutes such statements as these: "The recommendations for local churches are suggestive and permissive only." In many instances the Annual Conference has ruled on a matter after it has become accepted practice among many congregations.6
The query, a time-honored method of the church in seeking for the truth of a matter, has been widely used by congregations and districts. The term "query" suggests a method of asking for the correctness or propriety of an action or belief. This method has been extended into the
sixteen
twentieth century from the nineteenth as a method of forming church policy. It is now regarded as "a very slow and laborious method of receiving information or effecting any desired change."7 The 1967 Annual Conference recommended a sharpening of queries by research and a study by local districts. If a satisfactory answer cannot be found, then the query shall be sent to the Annual Conference.
The delegate body of the conference is composed of representatives from the districts and the congregations. The district delegates comprise the Standing Committee of the Annual Conference. This body of delegates nominates, studies queries, recommends responses to queries and acts in cases of discipline and controversy. Since 1968, each district has been permitted one Standing Committee member for each 7,000 members or fraction thereof. Members of the Standing Committee are chosen to serve for a two-year period. They may not be reelected to this position until four years have elapsed. 8
The Southern District has regularly selected ministers and elders to represent it at the Annual Conference Standing Committee sessions. Out of the ninety-three representatives who have served from 1940 until 1971, eighty-seven of these have been ministers. The Standing Committee rules were not changed to permit lay representation until 1954. The Southern District Board took action to permit lay representation at a meeting held on September 6, 1958. Since that decision was made, only six lay persons have represented the district as members of the Standing Com- mittee. This distinction belongs to Naomi West (1961), Cyrus G. Bucher (1961), Dr. John R. Herr (1964), Goldie (Baugher) Sterner (1965), Ronald H. Rowland (1968, 1969) and Stanley Baugher (1969).
Members of the Standing Committee have regularly received words of instruction from the conference moderators. In 1962, the district delegates received this assignment from moderator Nevin H. Zuck:
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.