USA > Pennsylvania > Two centuries of the Church of the Brethren in western Pennsylvania, 1751-1950 > Part 6
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 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57
As Brethren families moved westward, because of economic necessity in a new and undeveloped land, the need for educa- tion was largely forgotten and the "landmarks" were moved.
In this epoch, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the church was beginning to experience a tremendous change within. Just how much this change was being brought about by the influence of H. R. Holsinger would be hard to evaluate.
7 Otho Winger, History and Doctrine of the Church of the Brethren. Page 159,
74
Part One: District Developments
Certainly he played no small part in it. In an article in the Primitive Christian of January 22, 1882, Elder J. T. Myers wrote of the church of the period thus:
It is only of late years that we have been looked upon by the socalled evangelical churches as being an aggressive and evange- lizing Church. . .. We have noble-hearted brethren, full of the Spirit of the Master, going from place to place declaring the un- searchable riches of Christ's kingdom. . .
Again the educational interest in the colleges of Ashland, Mt. Morris and Huntingdon, have also done a good work in their re- spective sphere. ... Sunday schools have also been pretty generally introduced amongst us. ... Homes for the orphaned and poor have . . . been established in the East and in the West. . . .
That we have approached a crisis in the history of the Brethren Church must be evident to the most of us. ... Nothing but questions of the very gravest importance should allow us to take our final leave from each other, and verily the questions now discussed at Annual Meeting, and in some of our papers, do not justify the aliena- tion of hearts and the sundering of Christian ties, so noticeable amongst us already. Better, far better, have too much charity for each other, ... than to be so very sensitive in matters that should be left to the arbitration of an individual and personal conscience.
Little has been said in this chapter concerning the schism which took place at the Annual Meeting in 1881, when the ultra- conservatives left the main body of the church. That action had little effect upon our district, except as their insistence upon maintaining the status quo on ultraconservative issues had the tendency to accelerate the struggle for more progressivism on the other side.
For the story of the events transpiring in the years just pre- ceding the division in 1882, we quote from Brother Faust's thesis:
But even a more important schism resulted in the next year in which the other extreme arm of the more progressives either separated from the main body or were excommunicated. The meth- ods used by both groups were much the same. Each followed a few extreme leaders, though Holsinger, who wrote the history of all groups and led the Progressive schism, and stressed the force of leadership with the conservatives, does not emphasize the im- portance of this fact in his own case.
Both dissenting groups maintained literary organs (the Vin- dicator and the Progressive Christian) to set forth their views and were cautioned by Annual Meeting to fairness and to avoid dissen- sion from emphasizing extremist views. The main body, it is appar- ent now, went much further to appease the [more] conservative than the progressive group. They really proposed to save and serve both conservative and progressive, but in their effort lost both. Time and again, they criticized Holsinger for too liberal views on education and for opposing rigid enforcement of what was in- tended to be advisory legislation.
The criticism did not all come from the ultraconservatives, for criticism continued in the general conference after they had separated. The [ultra] conservatives generally withdrew volun-
75
Part One: District Developments
tarily. ... In the case of the progressives, a number of them had been disfellowshipped for failure to conform fully to the order or rules which ambitious elders decided to consider mandatory rather than advisory. Progressive leaders then organized a new group from those disfellowshipped. It then became a problem for the main body to decide what to do with the leader and reclaimed group of expelled members. A committee was sent by Annual Confer- ence to "wait upon this elder in his own congregation." Now let us note the procedure of the committee from Annual Meeting in disowning Brother Holsinger, which culminated [in] the schism.
The committee upon arrival at Berlin, Somerset county, found that Holsinger had employed a stenographer [a member in full standing] and promised through his paper, The Progressive Chris- tian, to publish all the findings. The surprised committee hesitated, then agreed, but on the second day refused to continue since there was no precedent for such procedure. Holsinger insisted upon his plan and refused to be investigated otherwise. The committee refused to hear him thus and excommunicated him for insubordina- tion.
The above facts were set forth at Annual Conference by John Wise, chairman of the committee, who also gave the Scriptural grounds for excommunication. D. C. Moomaw did not consider this banning procedure to be in the interests of peace and harmony for the church and asked for a day of delay to consider what he called the "olive branch of peace." This proposal, Holsinger later claimed he had offered through Moomaw because of his own fail- ing voice and made overtures as follows: 1. He asked the pardon of the church. 2. He promised to administer discipline in harmony with the church practice and to cease speaking or writing in an- tagonism of the general order and union of the church as now practiced. 3. He promised to cease publication in The Progressive Christian, or elsewhere, of anything in opposition to Annual Meet- ing. 4. He also promised to publish these declarations and harmoni- ous actions in The Progressive Christian. It must be stated, however, that Holsinger could not sanction and would not approve their wholesale banning of those who differed in minor matters of order.
There was a strong sense of the seriousness of the situation ex- pressed by various speakers. Highly respected leaders and influen- tial writers as J. H. Moore, and a former Moderator, R. H. Miller [Sr.], favored delay, though they had been opposed to Holsinger's practices. But leaders like D. P. Saylor regarded the committee as slandered and reviled, and wanted their character vindicated, while other legalists like John Wise said it was too late to consider, and still others thought it out of order to delay action.
One speaker claimed they had been bearing with Holsinger for the last 10 or 15 years. There were about a dozen speeches against Holsinger and some thirty in his favor before noon adjournment, at which time it looked as though the adjustment might be made, but there was some pressure brought upon the standing committee who then played a stronger part after noon. The [delegates] were weary with continued agitation and the report of the committee expelling Holsinger was accepted, though there were a total of about fifty speeches in his favor and thirty opposing him. He had arisen eleven times to speak in his own behalf. In his final appeal, he said, "I am not able for this occasion. .. . " And thus he proposed to leave it to their judgment and Divine Providence with a belated emphasis on one thought that in spite of friends urging to separate
76
Part One: District Developments
from the main body he "exercised every power to preserve the union of the Brotherhood." [See Full Report of Annual Meeting, 1882.]
This official [Brotherhood] organization accepted the report of the committee, disfellowshipping this energetic but impatient, fiery and almost turbulent leader and enthusiast for missions and educa- tion, who had thrown all his energies against coercion, dogmatism, and formalism as well as the use of the ban for non-conformists. He pled for freedom of conscience in living the simple life in the Scriptural way. His ideas were mingled with progression in religion as well as in every day living. He may not have been highly edu- cated from the college standpoint but that he was keenly intelligent and educated in a practical way, far above the [average] no one will doubt. He was so intelligent as to be able to print stimulating liter- ature and to lead the [people]. It was this leadership which they feared. He was unmanageable in the normal way and [his reaction] was not true to pattern.
In contrast to his activity, those who opposed him felt that they had the tradition of their fathers to maintain by way of en- forcing the pure and simple way of life. They also felt the responsi- bility in "housekeeping." But there was no doubt also a marked clash of personalities and perhaps a bit of personal enmity in leadership. In general, however, it must be said that they were moved by sincere motives and were worthy of more than ordinary respect which their communities accorded them. There is no thought of condemning their motives or activities. Only the human and psychological elements are stressed here for analysis. There is no thought of minimizing their otherwise fine spirits and sac- rificial efforts, nor their relation to the "ecclazia" as they inter- preted it.
If, however, the adjoining elder [Conrad G. Lint]8 had been a bit more considerate in disfellowshipping or more generous in re- claiming them, and if the chairman of the committee sent by Annual Meeting had not been so persistent on the floor in pressing for a vote by the delegate body when the "iron was hot," the tide might have turned in the greatest catastrophe that overtook the church in modern times. Naturally the disfellowshipped leader continued his work of reorganizing a branch of the church, which took with it another three thousand members, and which soon swelled to an estimated six thousand five hundred and has since grown to several times that number.9
A look into the picture of the faces of this group and a knowl- edge of their lives as presented by Holsinger, convinces one that the church here lost many of its finest and best families of ardent workers, both ultra-conservative and progressive. The ban which had rocked the organization to its foundation at Schwarzenau, and which was so condemned by [George Adam] Martin, had followed him into Somerset county and again threatened the welfare of the whole church. None can say to what extent the church body could have prospered by further delay of the issue. . . . It is important to note that this national debacle centered largely within the bounds of Somerset county.10
8 Bishop Lint was a strict adherent to the principles of the more conservative element of the main body of the Brethren, and in his "housekeeping" policy he ex- communicated from membership the first group of so-called Progressive Brethren at Meyersdale.
9 The 1936 U. S. Census of Religious Bodies says thirty thousand, six hundred thirty-six.
10 Alvin G. Faust, op. cit. Pages 243-248.
77
Part One: District Developments
The members of the Berlin Committee, which had been sent by the Annual Meeting, were John Wise, foreman; Christian Bucher, secretary; Enoch Eby, David Long, and Joseph H. Kaufman.
The Annual Meeting which accepted the report of the Berlin Committee met at Arnold's Grove, Indiana, in 1882. To give the reader just a glimpse of that meeting, we quote a paragraph from one of the daily papers, whose reporter said:
Tuesday. Every State . . . but one ... had delegates present. .. . The vast tent was ... packed ... with men and women, and never before in all our life have we gazed on an assemblage of so many people who might be called well up in years. Certainly, the locks of one-half of the male portion engaged in the committee were grizzled with gray, while still a very large proportion carried hairs that were almost white. We doubt if another denomination or body in all the land, can show so many aged. . . . [About 12,000 people were present Tuesday.]11
To get some idea of how the editor of the Primitive Chris- tian felt about the decision, we quote the final paragraph of a lengthy article by James Quinter on "Church Councils and the Nature of their Decisions" as printed in the Brethren at Work, July 11, 1882:
To separate a member from the body, when there is a vital connection with the body, and there is such a connection when there is no sufficient cause for the separation, is a great affliction to the body, and to the member separated as well. So while we are to put away the wicked from the church, 1 Cor. 5:13, we are to be cautious that while we are to remove the tares we do not "root up also the wheat with them" Matt. 13:29. Hence the great re- sponsibility resting on the church in making rules or decisions that are mandatory. Their effects reach into eternity, and influence souls that are of more value than worlds.
Elder Joseph Berkey was among the leaders in our district who were concerned lest they uproot the wheat. Nor were those considered tares who interpreted church polity and church policy from different viewpoints. The old Shade Creek congre- gation, of which Brother Berkey was elder, furnishes us an excellent example of what happened in some churches, and of what should have happened in all churches. All factions were represented in this area-progressive, conservative, and reaction- ary. They were allowed to "battle it out on her own church council floor or in the general church life and social life of the congregation."12 This conciliatory attitude of the elder was responsible to a great degree for the fact that while other "church
11 This excerpt was reprinted in the Primitive Christian, June 6, 1882.
12 Alvin G. Faust, op. cit. Page 251. Age was a major cause.
78
Part One: District Developments
communities were torn asunder Shade Creek remained with scarcely a member being carried away by the earlier schism even up until the turn of the century" (Faust).
Others throughout the district and the Brotherhood had worked hard and had written much to prevent the decision which came finally at the Annual Meeting in 1882. We quote the first part of an article in the Primitive Christian, under date of February 21, 1882. It was written by I. D. Parker, and titled "Reconciliation. No. 2."
The serious nature and magnitude of our church difficulties are indeed alarming to every thoughtful and observing follower of Christ, and we reasonably conclude that all this disturbance and dis- union was not occasioned by one-misstep nor by any one individual, neither did it come instantaneously nor altogether unexpectedly. It has been growing for a long time. . Some tell us the Standing Committee have formed into a ring or combination seeking to sub- stitute their own decrees for the Gospel and thus lord it over God's heritage. Others charge the whole trouble upon schools and col- leges. One don't see any good in Sabbath-schools and thinks they are the cause. Another comes to the front firmly declaring every one penurious, superstitious and covetous that do not see good in colleges, etc., and will not appropriate their money and time to their support. The church papers, says one, bring all this commotion, while another loudly proclaims ignorance, envy and jealousy the sole cause. Some attribute it to the uniformity question, and some to a desire that many have for fashionable attire. Some say there are too many elders and preachers in one church all striving for the mastery. Some blamed the A. M. committee for it; some say the government of the church is too rigid, others that it is too loose. Some believe it is free speech, and some think it grows out of a disposition among the elders to take away the rights and privileges of others in the exercise of their legitimate business, etc., etc., ad infinitum. These things are publicly declared to be the cause, and often in a harsh way, until some one is offended and resents the injury in the same spirit. Dear brethren, if we would have that "peace that passeth understanding," we must cease to dispute about the cause and unite to effect a remedy.
"Today, as we look back over the pages of the past, we can see underlying and basic causes which were not apparent to the church leaders of that day. The explanation for the schisms in the Church of the Brethren lies very deep beneath the super- ficial causes which catch the eye. They are not found alone or wholly in the desire to obey the Scripture or to "keep house" and regulate the church body, nor in crystallization of pattern and formalism which tends to overtake every institution, nor in the dogmatism and self-interest of leaders who aspire to be at the top, nor in the nature of human nature. Nor is it found, alone, in the theology of our church fathers, including Peter Nead or any other particular theologian, nor in the pattern set
2
9
79
Part One: District Developments
by Conrad Beissel and the Ephrata society. Nor is it wholly alone in the effect of education on tearing down the old pattern, nor in the power of an agricultural life to maintain such a pattern. It cannot be found alone in the impact of the frontier against a fixed and stratified society.
"The cause is not alone in modern transportation, communi- cation and industrialization nor the modern idea of economic determination of history."13 All of these are important. How- ever, since economic environment is important-but perhaps has been less understood and has been less emphasized-and, since it is less personal and might help relieve some of the heat and pressure of personal blame, it might be well to call attention to this factor as a cause of division. It might aid the spirit of unity.
As the years went by, the wounds which had been inflicted during this unfortunate period of misunderstanding and change began to heal. The first attempt at reconciliation came from the Brethren Church in 1904. In the Gospel Messenger of Feb- ruary 26, 1916, Brother H. C. Early wrote an article from which is gleaned the following information.
The Brethren Church sent a representative to our Annual Meeting in 1904 to investigate the possibility of better under- standing and eventual re-union. No steps were taken by our church toward that end, however, until 1914, when the Standing Committee of that year appointed a Committee on Fraternal Relations. But the appointment was not submitted to that Con- ference for confirmation and authorization. The following year, 1915, the Annual Meeting of the Church of the Brethren author- ized a Committee on Fraternal Relations with instructions to study the question and to report to the Conference.
This committee has been continued through the years until the present. Much work has been done and various reports have been submitted, but the efforts have not yet grown to full fruition.
And now, after the passing of almost seventy years, the mis- takes of our fathers should not prevent us from manifesting the finest spirit of brotherhood in this generation. With our common ancestral heritage, our belief in the same doctrines and symbols, we have much with which to build a closer fellowship. Every member of the Church of the Brethren has an opportunity to manifest the friendlier attitude toward every member of the Brethren Church, looking forward toward that final unity for
13 Ibid.
Front row, left to right: H. T. Hixon, H. R. Hol- singer, E. S. Miller, Sam- uel Kiehl
Second row: I. P. Mor- ton, George Neff, I. A. Ridenour, R. Z. Replogle, H. S. Jacobs, F. W. Fitz- gerald, J. B. Wampler
Third row: W. L. Span- ogle, Ed Mason, I. H. Worst, S. H. Bashor, P. J. Brown, A. A. Cober, T. E. Davis, I. C. Cripe
Back row: William Keefer, I. H. Swopart, W. J. N. Bauman, E. L. Yoder, J. W. Beer, S. Hildebrand, D. S. Cripe
-
-
Ministers at the Convention of the Brethren Church at Dayton, Ohio, 1883
81
Part One: District Developments
which our Master prayed, "That they all may be one" (John 17:21).
In the spirit of Christian fellowship we are including in this chapter a picture, "The Brethren Church Ministers"; it is the picture of those who attended their first convention at Day- ton, Ohio, June 6 and 7, 1883 (see cut). It is of interest to know that the only one of the number who ever had the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee was Elder P. J. Brown,14 who had been elected to the ministry at Markleysburg, Penn- sylvania, in 1850. He served on the Standing Committee at Lanark, Illinois, in 1880.
During the past quarter century there have been in Western Pennsylvania several incidents of "fraternal relations" between the two churches. The most outstanding of these was the Ju- bilee Sunday School Convention at Meyersdale in 1929. It was planned a year in advance and was continuously promoted throughout the year. The extensive publicity invited the Breth- ren Church and the Church of the Brethren to unite in a great "Jubilee Convention," where we would be ONE FOR A DAY, as we had been fifty years before at the first convention in 1879.
Dr. Charles A. Bame
Jubilee Conven- tion speaker from the Brethren Church
About twelve hundred people set their faces toward the town where the first "division" had oc- curred. Both churches were used for the convention sessions, with both pastors and members in co-oper- ation. It was a brotherhood in action and fellowship, and the Lord blessed us abundantly. The conven- tion badges displayed clasped hands and the names, The Brethren Church (above), and the Church of the Brethren (below). Dr. Charles A. Bame (see cut) was the official representative of the Brethren Church and Willis E. Ronk was the pastor of the local church. Both were speakers on the convention program. No effort was made to learn how many of the vast crowd belonged to each communion, and of those who had "attended Sunday-school for 50 years or more" no question was asked as to where they belonged.15 (See cut of one hundred thirty- five of the "50 Year" folk.)
The next year, 1930, a great "Brethren Youth Congress" was held at Johnstown, using the buildings of both the Walnut Grove Church of the Brethren and the First Brethren church for sessions. Over a thousand people were in
14 Holsinger's history. Page 659.
15 Above data taken from an article entitled "The Convention of History," by W. J. Hamilton, published in the District Herald, September 1929.
"Fifty-Year Sunday School Folk" at the Jubilee Convention, Meyersdale, 1929
83
Part One: District Developments
the audience at the First Brethren church that night, when one hundred twenty people from twenty Sunday schools presented the pageant, The Light of the World.
The ministers of both communions have fellowshipped for a number of years in the Conemaugh Valley Ministerium, and other similar friendly relations are to be sought and encouraged. An experiment in joint pastorates has been tried in Washington County, Pennsylvania, between the Highland Brethren church and the Ten Mile Church of the Brethren. We quote from a let- ter written by a Highland Brethren church leader:
I received your letter concerning the Joint Pastorate of the Ten Mile Church of the Brethren and the Highland Brethren Church. I am glad to be of any pos- sible assistance. I am en- closing a picture of the High- land Brethren Church which you may use, and the follow- ing information.
Rev. G. Landis Baker, (pastor of the Ten Mile Church of the Brethren), was the supply pastor of the Highland Brethren Church for some months during 1939 and until April 1, 1940, when he was called as the regular pastor. He served the High- land Church until September, 1942. During that time, two evangelistic meetings were led by Dr. L. O. McCartney- smith of Waterloo, Iowa. There were twenty-two con- verts as the result of these meetings and they were baptized and taken into the church by Rev. Baker. During the entire pastorate of Rev. Baker, a fine spirit of cooperation existed between the Ten Mile Church of the Brethren and the Highland Brethren Church. We were glad to have had Rev. Baker as our pastor.
Highland Brethren Church, Wash- ington County
Very sincerely yours,
Jonathan Moore.
The Brethren Evangelist for September 2, 1950, published the 1950 General Conference moderator's address, by Reverend Willis E. Ronk, from which we quote the following:
Fraternal Relations
The Moderator was delegated by the Conference of last year to attend Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren. This con- ference was held at Grand Rapids, Michigan in June; and the two days spent among the Brethren in their conference were greatly enjoyed. We were graciously and courteously received by the Breth- ren and seated on the platform with their Church leaders. It was a rare privilege to be so seated for three business sessions, to see the
84
Part One: District Developments
workings of the conference, and to discover that some of their prob- lems are the problems which we have faced.
We were given a few minutes to bring fraternal greetings and this we did as graciously and courteously as possible. My impression is that what was said, or even what might have been said was not as significant as my presence. Dr. Bonsack is being sent to bring fraternal greetings and of course he will be received graciously and courteously. I will not be Moderator when he arrives, . . . but I trust at least a few minutes will be allotted to hear his greetings.
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.