USA > Pennsylvania > Change and challenge: a history of the Church of the Brethren in the southern district of Pennsylvania, 1940-1972 > Part 8
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
forty-six
The issue of church extension returned to the 1957 Annual Conference. A report described the Church of the Brethren as "a small church" with 266 congregations having fewer than seventy-five persons and with an average of 186 members in all congregations. In this same year the Southern District had seven congregations out of thirty-seven with less than a hundred members. The average membership in all the district congregations was 256.
The Annual Conference analyzed the denomination's past in these terms:
"We have been a rural church . . . We have been a stable church. As Separatists, we prided ourselves on being a peculiar people . Evangelism was primarily a matter of the conservation of the family rather than an effort to reach a wider community, lest we become 'unequally yoked with unbelievers!' ".21
When the Southern District Board was first organized, it began to grapple with the thorny problem of church extension. The problem was created in part by the actions of the 1957 and the 1958 Annual Confer- ence decisions on Church Extension. The conference decisively voted in favor of reciprocal membership in which persons from evangelical denom- inations could be received into full fellowship without rebaptism. The statement said:
"When their lives testify to us of the fruits of the Spirit, we shall regard them as fellow Christians, and may receive them as full members in full fellowship with us in Christ."
Even before the action of the 1958 Annual Conference, the Southern District Board acted favorably upon a Missions and Church Extension Commission recommendation:
. after the Harrisburg Church has made its decision about its new location (and it now appears that the West Shore is the responsibility of the Southern District), we look with favor upon the possibility of the district establishing a church in that area."22
The District Board voted to "give hearty approval to the proposed project of establishing a church in the Harrisburg West Shore area, and encourage the Commission to work with the General Brotherhood Board, the Reg- ional Secretary and the Pennsylvania Council of Churches in its develop- ment."23
Harry K. Balsbaugh, of the Harrisburg Church of the Brethren, was employed to make a preliminary survey of the West Harrisburg area. After he had driven 145 miles in a survey and had studied possible church sites, he recommended a location along route 15 bordering the Slate Hill Road.
The new District Board in 1958 established a set of guidelines for mission churches. These policies were stated and have been used ever since in the development of church extension projects:
1 .- That each mission point shall have a worker who is totally responsible for implementing the church program under the super- vision of the Missions and Church Extension Commission;
2 .- That a mission point shall be given support for no longer than ten years. The mission point is to pay ten percent of the pastor's support the first year, twenty percent the second year, and so on until full support is paid. The deed shall be given to the congregation when it is full-supporting;
3 .- Congregations cannot be recognized until they are at least fifty percent self-supporting and then only on the recommendation of the Commission; and
4 .- That thorough surveys be made before beginning any church extension work in the district. This is to be done in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Council of Churches comity agreement.
forty-seven
The 1958 Annual Conference Conference agreed on a Church Extens- ion policy: "We will seek to develop congregations which are inclusive of all people in the communities". The implication of this decision was widely debated in private and public before the Southern District called a special conference on April 20, 1959. This conference rejected a proposal to pur- chase five acres of land in "The Town and Country Development" area of the Harrisburg West Shore. This investment would have required expend- itures of $25,000 for the lot with an additional $10,000 for improvements.24
Some congregations of the Southern District objected to the new policies of the brotherhood regarding church membership. They clearly objected to permissive communion practices and to the policy of reciprocal membership. These objections had been raised as early as 1950 by an action of the District Ministerial Commission and had been conveyed in query form to the 1951 Annual Conference. The query said in part:
"We petition Annual Conference at San Jose, California, through District Meeting, to continue to recognize and observe trine immer- sion as the only New Testament form of Christian baptism. Therefore, all people applying for church membership shall be received into our Christian fellowship by this ritual, which is basic."
Although the query was returned to the district, the opposition to open membership continued.
The Annual Conference of 1950 made it clear that the practice of receiving members into the local congregation was a congregational decision and that "each case shall be handled by the local congregation as the Holy Spirit would direct, always being concerned for harmony in the congregation".25
The question of open membership had been created by comity agree- ments in which the Church of the Brethren assumed the responsibility for the religious care of all evangelical Christians within a given com- munity.
The District Board appointed a special committee to study the 1958 conference decision with respect to church extension. This committee was composed of Cyrus G. Bucher, convener, Joseph M. Baugher, Murray P. Lehman, Ronald H. Rowland, Paul K. Newcomer and Warren S. Kis- singer. The committee surveyed other denominations to determine the prevailing practices with reference to rebaptism and church membership. To the committee was also delegated the responsibility for resolving the differences which centered around the church extension policies. Discus- sions within the committee centered about the practice of nearly half the congregations of the brotherhood who were already accepting mem- bers from other evangelical groups without requiring rebaptism.
In 1960, the special committee reported to the District Board its find- ings. The report said in part:
1 .- Individual churches or groups of churches who are like- minded could engage in church extension;
2 .- Areas in need of church extension are the eastern part of York, the community of Hanover and the West Shore area of Harris- burg; and
3 .- At present we need to examine the possibility of establishing new churches in new communities according to traditional methods.
There were complaints offered at the District Conferences that the district was not as active in Home Missions work as it was in some other phases of church life. Meanwhile, the Commission on Missions and Church Extension recommended that funds allocated for Church Extension in the district budget be invested in brotherhood church extension notes. These invested funds were to be used for "the developmnt of a new church when such a project is approved by the district".26
forty-eight
When the First Church of the Brethren decided to relocate in East York, the decision stirred new church extension interests. A study committee appointed by the District Board recommended the inaugura- tion of a church extension project in West Manchester Township, York County. The report of the committee, adopted by the District Board in 1966, also recommended that the work at Belvidere and King Streets be discontinued. The District Board prepared a recommendation for church extension to the district in the fall of 1966.
When some of the First Church members decided to continue to worship at Belvidere and King Streets, a special conference met in the Carlisle Church on February 28, 1967. This conference adopted the fol- lowing recommendations:
"That the Greater West York Fellowship be granted the right to seek to purchase the property at Belvidere and King Streets;
"That the District Board be granted some time to study the Five Mile House Church Extension project and that the Board report to the 1967 district conference."
The board made its study through a special committee and reported to the District Conference. The study committee "agreed unanimously after intensive research of the Greater West York area that a Church of the Brethren needs to be established in the general area of the Five Mile House located on route 30 in West Manchester Township." The District Confer- ence approved the recommendation and granted $20,000 from the Church Extension Fund for the project. It also authorized the District Board to seek supplemental support from the General Brotherhood Board for church extension.
Church extension has been a crucial issue with the Brethren since the 1940s. Some congregational and brotherhood leaders were insisting that the Brethren must do their fair share of evangelizing the new growth of the population in cities and suburbs. There were occasional murmurs that the Church of the Brethren had continued to be rural-oriented in its church extension practices and had ignored such developing areas as Carlisle, the Harrisburg West Shore and the Greater York area. An attempt on the part of the Commission on Missions and Church Exten- sion to establish a more liberal church extension policy within the district failed.
As early as 1956, the Standing Committee of the Annual Conference introduced a special query requesting a statement on church extension. The request grew out of a rising need to clarify church polity. The 1958 Annual Conference adopted a paper which recognized other forms of baptism as valid. The 1968 Annual District Conference of Southern Pennsylvania eliminated from the Annual Conference paper those por- tions which called for the admission of members of evangelical congrega- tions by a confession of faith or by a transfer of letter. The District Conference also rejected the position which welcomed all Christians to the Lord's Table and which permitted the use of bread and cup Com- munions apart from the Lovefeast service. Many congregations within the district practice these church extension policies even though the district has failed to endorse them.
The Southern District Board, through its Commission on Missions and Church Extension, undertook a cooperative park ministry with the Pennsylvania Council of Churches. The Council, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters, inaugurated religious services in the Commonwealth's state parks in 1959. Cooperating denom- inations were approached to provide chaplains and financial support for the program which ministers to vacationers and campers. By 1965, 25,000 persons attended worship services in ten of the seventy-one state
forty-nine
parks in Pennsylvania during the summer months. By 1970, the number of chaplaincy programs had increased to seventeen in the state.
The Southern District Board was requested to provide services at the Pinchot State Park in northern York County. This park contains 23,000 acres of land with a lake three and a half miles in length. It contains nearly 400 acres for campers with adequate water supplies and improved roadways. It also contains an open air chapel large enough to accommo- date 300 persons. In the four years of the program under Brethren auspices, the largest attendance was 420 persons at a Labor Day Sunday service in 1971. The average attendance at these Sunday Services has been about 200 persons.
In 1969, when the program was inaugurated at Pinchot Park, Robert L. Earhart, a Bethany Seminary student, served as the chaplain. In 1970, the summer chaplain was James Tice, also of Bethany Theological Sem- inary. When the Commission on Missions and Church Extension was unable to secure a seminary student in 1971, Elmer Q. Gleim provided the ministry to the campers. Each minister has brought to the service his own style of ministry. Some have emphasized work with youth; others have accented the worship services. Some have provided Sunday School experiences for the young. All have spent time in visiting and counseling with the people who vacation in the park during the summer.
In 1972, Herman Kauffman, of Goshen, Indiana, served under the District Commission on Missions and Church Extension. He was a first year Bethany Theological Seminary student. He and the other chaplains have lived at the Park in a mobile-home provided by the district for the chaplaincy program.
THE MEMBERSHIP QUESTION
The troublesome question of church membership became an issue in the post-war years. At the time the Southern District query appeared before the 1951 Annual Conference concerning the receiving of members by trine immersion only, three other queries also appeared. The churches and the districts which raised the issue wished for a reaffirmation of the principle of trine immersion. The conference of 1951 took no action on the question.
So long as the Church of the Brethren continued to hold to a sectarian view of iteself, it has insisted upon trine immersion as the only acceptable form of baptism. In 1915, when the issue of receiving members from other denominations was raised, the principle was restated:
"persons who are satisfied with their baptism, having been per- formed in the scriptural manner, viz., trine immersion unto remission of sins and desire to unite with the church . . . they may be received."27 Attempts to change this basic principle of receiving members have con- sistently met with resistance at the Annual District and Brotherhood Conferences.
In actual practice, however, the Church of the Brethren has exercised wide freedom in receiving members. The problem has been intensified in part by the comity agreements under which the Church of the Brethren has agreed to serve all peoples in an assigned geographical area. The problem has also been created by the growth of a more inclusive concept of the church. Members began to think of the church no longer possessively as "our church" but inclusively as the Church of Christ.
Further, the awareness grew that the church is far more than a Sunday congregation. The growing lay emphasis helped people to dis- cover that the church is the people of God scattered abroad to influence every department of daily life. This changed view aided the Annual Conference in adopting the recommendation that congregations may
fifty
extend to members of other evangelical denominations the privileges of participating in the Lovefeast, "thus recognizing them as members of the family of Christ".28
By such small strides the Church of the Brethren began to separate itself from its sectarian views in order to accept a more universal view of the church. The membership began to discern that the church trans- cends the old national and ethnic loyalties associated with earlier years. Part of this developing ecumenical consciousness arose because of the increasing mobility of the Brethren. Church members, moving into a new community, find their church home with little concern for past denom- inational affiliation.
With these changes have come others. The church began to assume the dimensions of a denomination. When the Southern District was in- corporated in 1948, one of the requirements of the incorporation was that each congregation shall maintain accurate membership listings.29 The question of statistical lists raised the problem of reporting member- ship. Shall complete membership lists be reported, or only active member- ship lists? One of the concerns before the Commission on Ministry and Evangelism was the practice of churches in trimming their church rolls to reduce their district assessments. A study for the period 1946 to 1965 indicated that the churches of the district were experiencing baptismal growth:
1946-1950-1,346 baptisms 1951-1955-1,522 baptisms 1956-1960-1,648 baptisms 1961-1965-1,495 baptisms
In spite of these additions, many congregations were reporting regular losses or only small growth.
One of the great tragedies of the Christian Church, and of the Church of the Brethren, is its failure to conserve the results of its evan- gelism. Indifference, inattendance, misunderstandings, irrelevance, mobil- ity have all contributed to church membership losses. A personal letter of 1943 from one member of the district to another said:
"It is surprising how many families there are in the community who have Brethren backgrounds and should be in the church but because of its misunderstandings they belong to other denomina- tions."30
The brotherhood and the district established church polity with respect to the transfer of membership from one denomination to another. The 1951 Annual Conference of San Jose, California, enunciated these principles with respect to church letters:
1 .- Church letters represent the method by which a denomination maintains the location and tabulation of its membership within the organization. However, the system does not guarantee Christian discipleship;
2 .- A letter of transfer is the property of the congregation. Its chief purpose is to register, promote and safeguard the transfer of membership from one congregation to another within the denomina- tion;
3 .- A letter of transfer, or an explanatory letter from the con- gregation, may be given to individuals who transfer from one denom- ination to another. A special form shall be used for elders, ministers and deacons.31
The brotherhood and the district have also dealt with the problem of defining membership. As early as 1932, the Annual Conference defined "an active member as one who avails himself of the public means of grace by attending some regular church service, or a communion service, or contributes to the support of the Gospel".32 The Anderson, Indiana,
fifty-one
Conference established the principle that only active members shall be counted in creating the budget for the District and the Annual Conference. This conference classified members as active, inactive and absent.
The Southern District dealt with the question of membership classi- fication on several occasions. In 1962, it accepted the decision of the 1957 Annual Conference with respect to the reporting of church members. At this time, the following guidelines were adopted:
1 .- An accurate reporting of the total active membership;
2 .- A redemptive ministry toward the inactive membership;
3 .- The recording of inactive members on an inactive list after two years of inactivity; and
4 .- The regular annual revision of the statistical lists by some body of the congregation for accurate reporting.
When there were differences over the definition of "active" and "in- active" members, the District Conference restudied the question of mem- bership classification. In 1965, three principles were adopted by the conference:
1 .- Members may be classified as active, non-resident, inactive and absentee;
2 .- The statistical list shall constitute the active resident and the active non-resident membership; and
3 .- The statistical list of the congregation shall be the basis for determining the delegate strength and the per member assessment of each congregation, beginning in the year 1966-1967.
These actions were made in the interests of establishing accuracy in reporting and of equity in assessing the various congregations for the support of the district budget and the Annual Conference expenses.
STEWARDSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
The emphasis on stewardship in the Church of the Brethren is of comparatively recent origins. In the 1940s, contributions to the church were made largely on the basis of need and special appeals. Some con- gregations continue to use this stewardship approach. During World War II, the total giving of the congregations climbed to unprecedented heights in the face of the world's dire needs. However, giving to the district and brotherhood work was done by special offerings and had not become either systematic or regular.
Giving to the brotherhood program was encouraged and promoted by district field men in charge of the budget. In the period from 1940 till 1970, Clarence B. Sollenberger (1940-1946) and Jacob L. Miller (1947- 1970) informed congregations concerning their giving to brotherhood causes. The brotherhood fund included such areas as foreign missions, Brethren Service, Christian Education, Home Mis- sions, evangelism, Bethany Biblical Semin- ary, supplemental support for retired min- isters and missionaries and leadership training programs.
Walter A. Keeney
In the past three decades, the Southern District has been served by three treas- urers. J. E. Myers (1939-1947), elder of the Hanover congregation, served until his death in 1947. He was succeeded by Walter A. Keeney (1947-1963) of the Gettysburg Marsh Creek Church. Bro. Keeney was a prominent figure in the district finances until his resignation in 1963. The word of commendation to him from the District Board stated:
fifty-two
"He has been a very faithful and efficient servant of the district for many years and his wise counsel in financial matters will be greatly missed . . . "
On January 1, 1964, L. Alson Bohn, a lay member of the Waynesboro Church, was elected to serve as district treasurer. He has served quietly and efficiently until tenure requirements compelled his retirement in 1972. He has had the distinction of having served as the first salaried treasurer of the district. The District Board honored him with a special citation in the summer of 1972.
Over the years, the person-to-person approach in stewardship has proved most effective. Congregations have been af- forded the opportunity to support individual missionaries and overseas workers. Many churches of the Southern District respond- ed to this challenge and continue to sup- port such personnel. In this manner, the congregation feels a sense of involvement with the work. The General Brotherhood Board has frequently sponsored tours by furloughed missionaries and Brethren Service personnel. Very often congrega- tions have used such visits by workers as occasions for lifting special offerings for missions or service work.
At the beginning of the twentieth L. Alson Bohn century, the foundation was laid for a changed attitude toward stewardship. The introduction of the Every-Member Canvass and the printing of dated church envelopes helped to revolutionize church incomes. The use of the weekly offering envelopes not only increased church giving, but made possible the projection of annual church programs.33 This in turn led to the growth of the institutional church.
Stewardship in its present form was unknown in the early history of the Church of the Brethren. Church taxation was a bothersome question as early as 1865 and the Annual Meeting responded to a series of queries on the subject. The conferences during the Civil War period felt that "it was not expedient to raise money" by such taxation within the church. Soon congregations discussed excommunication for members who would not submit to taxation to erect buildings or to make improvements. The free-will offering was accepted as the standard of the New Testament. Contributions in cash or in labor were frequently used to erect church buildings.
The idea of a church budget was practically unknown till near the close of the nineteenth century. Even until this day, some congregations continue to use the interest from funds and properties to meet their operating expenses or to bolster their benevolent giving. In another section of this book, the women of the church will be accorded the honor they deserve in supporting the various financial interests of the church (Women's Work).
As early as 1944, leaders of the denomination were discussing the values of the unified budget system.34 In this same year, the brotherhood agreed that it could accept the tithe as a suggested minimum standard for stewardship practices. Some congregations felt that the success of the United Brethren Churches in the use of the unified budget should encourage the Church of the Brethren to adopt the system. Under this
fifty-three
plan, the total program of the church is met with a single offering (prefer- ably through marked church envelopes) raised on each Sunday of the church year.
The adoption of the budget system in the district came haltingly. Even until the present, some congregations prefer to operate without pre- established budgets. When the District Board was formed in 1957, steps were taken toward forming a total district budget. By 1960, however, only fifty-four percent of the congregations of the district were using church budgets and fifty-nine percent were using weekly envelopes to encourage systematic and regular giving. The district moved into the unified budget plan in 1962. "Out district unified budget now makes it possible to give to the entire district program through one assessment", the Stewardship Commission reported to the conference.
In the first year of its existence, the District Board confronted the question of assessing churches in order to support the institutions of the district. The vote was not decisive. The financial plight of the district was stated in one of the District Conference resolutions:
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.