Huntington University: Christian College of the Liberal Arts

Suggested Citation:
[Identification of Item]. Available at the United Brethren Historical Center website; http://www.huntington.
edu/ubhc/publications/ebooks/
virginia/virginiatitle.htm

History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, Virginia Conference

by A. P. Funkhouser

CHAPTER V

THE EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT AMONG THE GERMAN IMMIGRANTS

In our last chapter we spoke of a lack of religious teaching among the German settlers along the inland frontier. A similar fact was true of the Scotch-Irish, who were the dominant element on the same border. In the older communities, on and near the Atlantic seaboard, the religious privileges were as good as were known anywhere in that century. Rut there was a state church in eleven of the thirteen colonies, its houses of worship and its parsonages were paid for out of public taxation, and its ministers were, either in part or altogether, supported in the same manner. Where the Church of England prevailed, the rector was provided with a farm, and this was called a glebe. The rectors were selected by the higher authorities of the church, and not by the congregations to whom they ministered.

There was an unfortunate side of the influence of a church supported by the civil government and by public taxation. There was an almost irresistible drift to an accepted standard of merely formal piety, such as is spoken of in our sketch of William Otterbein. It was often the case that the minister was as worldly-minded as the average man of the community. If under such circumstances, there was any spiritual life in a congregation, it was in spite of the system and not as a consequence of it. The ministers of the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Reformed churches, all which were kindred denominations, had a very real interest in the well-being of the people under their care. Rut in their preaching there was too little of the reformatory and too much of the dogmatic and argumentative. And the prevalence in these communions of very long pastorates, even of fifty and sixty years, led to routine methods, spiritual sluggishness, and

churchly dry-rot. In a word, formalism in religion was everywhere the rule and not the exception. The times were very much in need of a loosening up of the parched-surface. In Germany, something was being dene in this direction by the Moravians and the Pietists; in England, by the Wesleys, whose methods were substantially the same as those of Spener, the founder of the Pietists; in America, by Wesleyan missionaries, by the New Lights, and at a later period by the founders of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.

In a political sense the American Revolution was a good, but from another point of view it was an evil. It interrupted the peaceful trend of the evangelistic movement. Partly through the influence of foreigners, the free thought then so rampant in Europe was scattered broadcast on the American soil. Religion was discredited by the formalism so often seen among the church people. In the popular estimation it was looked upon as a lifeless garment which might as well be thrown aside. Thus was prepared a congenial field for the nurture of infidelity and near-infidelity. Experimental religion was deemed weak and silly. Family worship was thought to be affectation, and many of the ministers themselves gloried in letting it alone. Among the students at Yale College in 1795 were only about five members of any church. William and Mary, which was the only college in Virginia, was a hotbed of unbelief. Bishop Meade of the Episcopal Church said in 1810 that nearly every educated young Virginian was a skeptic. The same fact was generally true of the professional men in all the states. In short, the Christian religion was held in scorn and it was the common opinion that it was outworn and would soon pass out of existence. Gross drunkenness was not only an everyday occurrence, but it was almost as common among ministers and other church members as among people in general.

The portrait of the times that has been drawn in the last paragraph is startling. And yet its accuracy is attested by the best of evidence. After 1825 there was a marked

improvement with respect to religion and temperance, but this only emphasizes the fact that during the long period between 1750 and 1825,—the lifetime of an elderly person,—America was sadly in need of evangelical instruction.

As in the instances of Otterbein and Boehm, there were a few evangelistic reformers in all the churches. Finding themselves lonesome in the stifling atmosphere of their own denominations, they leaped over sectarian lines and sought each other's society in religious gatherings. These gatherings developed into the "big meetings" held in barns and groves, owing to the lack of church buildings of sufficient size.

Our narrative now brings us to the memorable meeting between Otterbein and Boehm. It took place in the large barn of Isaac Long in Lancaster county in Pennsylvania. There were more people present than could get into the huge structure. Those who crowded into the barn were addressed by Boehm. An overflow meeting in the orchard was conducted by one or more of the "Virginia preachers" who were present. The New Light followers of White-field in the Valley of Virginia were known as the "Virginia preachers." The meeting took place on Whitsunday, and the year is believed to have been 1768. Otterbein had left the city of Lancaster and was preaching on the Tulpehocken. Boehm had not yet been disfellowshiped by the Mennonites. The crowd at Long's was made up of Germans and the preaching was in the German language. Perhaps all the distinctively German sects then known in America were represented at this meeting. In what way Otterbein came to be here is not known. There was little in common between the Reformed and the Mennonite churches, and there was a great lack of cordiality in the relations between them. But Otterbein sat on the platform near Boehm and listened to that minister with warmhearted appreciation. At the close of the sermon he clasped Boehm in his arms with the significant exclamation: "We are brethren." From this time forward, these two men, dissimilar in training and education, were united in the

firm bonds of religious fellowship. Early tradition has it that at the close of this meeting Otterbein, Boehm, and the Virginia preachers entered into a form of union on some simple yet definite conditions. Even the official name of the United Brethren in Christ is believed to date from the exclamation by Otterbein.

In fellowship with the leaders of such meetings as this, Otterbein found what he desired. The leaders were at first regular authorized ministers of various Protestant sects. But in evangelical spirit they stood on common ground. Thus came into being the ministerial intimacy between the scholarly Otterbein and the comparatively unlettered farmer-preachers, Boehm and Newcomer. Another associate was Guething, a Reformed minister, yet with only enough education to teach a country school.

However, Otterbein was not without other congenial spirits in his own church. Hendel, Wagner, Hautz, Henop, and Weimer were brother ministers who agreed with him as to methods. Adopting the system of Spener, they formed in the spring of 1774 the society known as "The United Ministers." They formed classes within their own congregations and congregations that were without pastors. General meetings were held twice a year, "that those thus united may encourage one another, pray and sing in unison, and watch over one another's conduct. All those who are thus united are to take heed that no disturbances occur among them, and that the affairs of the congregations be conducted and managed in an orderly manner." But the war for American Independence seems to have worked a suspension of these efforts.

We have remarked that it was an independent congregation of the Reformed Church to which Otterbein was called in 1774. It had had a pastor whose ministrations were very formal and whose life was inconsistent. The evangelical minority seceded in 1771, called Benedict Swope as their pastor, bought a lot, and built a frame house, succeeded in 1786 by the historic brick church now standing on the spot. The title to the property was not vested in

the Reformed Church at all, but in chosen members of the congregation. After a long drawn out law suit the validity of the title was upheld. The authorities of the Reformed Church tried without success to bring about a reconciliation. In 1774 Otterbein, who was already no stranger in Baltimore, was called. This independent body styled itself an "Evangelical Reformed" church, and was not definitely received into the United Brethren fold until 1817. It did not acknowledge the authority of the Reformed synod, nor was it disowned by that body. But in theology Otterbein's church was Arminian, while the Reformed Church upheld Calvinism. The class-meeting adopted as a feature of the Baltimore church, was unknown to the Reformed Church. The congregation adopted its own rules of government.

In substance these rules were as follows: Each member was to attend faithfully at all times of worship, and to perform no business or needless travel on Sunday; family worship was enjoined on all members, and offenses between member and member were to be dealt with as in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew; the slanderer was first to be admonished privately, then, if necessary, openly rebuked in class-meeting; members of other churches were admitted to communion, and persons who were not members were admitted by consent of the vestry if no objection were made. Still other rules were these: There was to be a class-meeting each week, an evening session for the men, a day-time session for the women. No person was to be admitted to such meeting unless resolved to seek his salvation and obey the disciplinary rules. The meetings were to begin and end with singing and prayer. Persistent absence without cause was to work expulsion. No preacher was to be retained who upheld predestination or the perseverance of the saints, or who was out of harmony with the disciplinary rules and the modes of worship, and on an accusation of immorality he might at once be suspended. One of the highest duties was to watch over the rising youth. There was to be one day of fasting in the spring and

one in the fall. A parochial school with instruction in the German tongue was to be established. The pastor, the three elders, and the three trustees were to constitute the vestry, which was the custodian of all deeds and other papers of importance. A highly significant rule was that the pastor was to care for the various churches in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia that were supervised by Otterbein and "in unity with us," and to give all possible encouragement to lay preachers and exhorters. Thus Otterbein's church in Baltimore was a mother church to various congregations scattered over several counties of the three states, and may be regarded as the primary organization of the sect with which it was to unite.

The men who founded the Church of the United Brethren in Christ did not wish to come out from the churches with which they had been associated. Their aim was to promote spirituality within the parent body. Spiritual inertia and a rising tide of opposition extinguished Otterbein's hope of working wholly within the Reformed Church. Nevertheless, he never actually withdrew from it, and until the very last his name was carried on its ministerial roll. And this was in face of the fact that he was criticized and persecuted by some of the Reformed ministers. Boehm, as we have seen, was cast out from the Mennonite sect. His followers were also excluded "until in true sorrow and penitence they should return and acknowledge their errors, both to God and the Church."

Both Otterbein and Boehm felt impelled to extend their usefulness by going beyond their own immediate boundaries. Each of these men preached with greatly enlarged power, because endowed with a special baptism of the Holy Spirit. But each labored chiefly among the people of his own denomination and such other persons as came within his sphere of influence.

For some years the adherents of the new movement came most largely from the Reformed Church. After the fathers of the United Brethren died, a revival spirit within the Reformed Church curtailed the number of accessions

from that quarter. But for forty years semi-independent Mennonite circles continued to push their way into the newly founded church. Otterbein and Boehm and their co-laborers had no choice. The duty was upon them to provide an ecclesiastical home for their followers. These followers were ostracized and even persecuted in the churches from which they had come, and they were derided by worldly people. They must have some place to go. It was the logic of circumstances that founded the United Brethren.

In the gradual development of the work by Otterbein and Boehm, congregations were formed, and these were presided over by local preachers, who were at the same time lay preachers, since they had to derive their livelihood from secular pursuits. Some of these men were class-leaders at first. Others felt more distinctly the call to an active ministry. As a rule they were men of little education yet of warm spirituality. For a long while these local preachers worked under the general direction of Otterbein and Boehm, who were therefore self-constituted bishops. The great meetings afforded much opportunity for counsel. But it was increasingly felt that a more definite and systematic procedure should be adopted.

The first actual conference in the history of the United Brethren Church met in Baltimore in 1789, and in the parsonage of William Otterbein. Besides the two leaders, there were present George A. Guething, Christian Newcomer, Henry Weidner, Adam Lehman, and John Ernst. Seven others were absent. Of the fourteen preachers recognized as belonging to the conference, nine had come from the Reformed Church, four from the Mennonites, and one from the Moravians. It had been twenty-two years since the first meeting between Otterbein and Boehm at Long's barn, and more than ten years since Boehm had been cast out of the Mennonite Church. Both men were past their prime and were more than sixty years of age. This marshaling of figures shows in an impressive manner how gradual and informal had been the rise of the United

Brethren movement. And even this first conference did not go so far as to effect a complete and well-rounded organization. It is not certain that it adopted the actual name by which the church is officially known. Yet it did adopt a comprehensive Confession of Faith and Rules of Discipline. Doubtless this little group of men realized that the hour had not quite arrived for the precise details of a thoroughgoing organization. The church they were founding was a growth, an evolution. It was not a thing made to order.

The final clause of the Confession of Faith then adopted is significant of the concessions made by the two leading elements which combined to form the United Brethren. In tradition and tendency the German Reformed and Mennonite churches were far apart. The former baptized infants, while the latter did not. The latter made the washing of feet a sacrament, while the former regarded it merely as an example. Neither party could be expected to come at once and unreservedly to the viewpoint of the other side. But each party could be charitable with regard to a difference of opinion, and this is what took place. The clause in question is a compromise and is tolerant and broad. In the United Brethren Church, three modes of baptism are recognized, and it is the privilege of the candidate to choose between sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. The washing of feet is not held to be an ordinance.

The second conference was held in 1791 at the home of John Spangler, eight miles from the city of York. Nine members were present and thirteen were absent. But the large number of absentees does not indicate indifference. At that time the highways were abominable. There were no railroads, automobiles, or telephones. The mails were slow, and letter postage was high. And as there was not yet an organized itinerancy, it was not the business of the conference to decide where the several preachers were to work. This was a matter they decided for themselves.



	Contact Us \| 2303 College Avenue Huntington, IN 46750 \| 1.800.642.6493 \| Copyright 2004