Disagreement with Annual Conference Decisions
The structure of the Brethren organization from the very beginning called on each member to take an active part in studying issues and making decisions. There were no inactive members in Schwarzenau in 1708. I'm sure the final vote was 8 to 0. There was no superior bureaucracy to make decisions for the body.
Differences of opinions among the members seemed inevitable. Less than ten years after the formation of the Brethren movement, a controversy arose within the congregation at Krefeld about whether a member could marry outside of the congregation. The dissention became so bitter that some members left and more than a hundred persons on the point of joining the congregation backed off from their decision. A cluster of twenty families, under the leadership of Peter Becker, migrated to Pennsylvania. Later, more members from Europe joined them in the New World, including a large group under the leadership of Alexander Mack in 1729.
After a surge of evangelistic efforts following the organization of the Germantown congregation in 1723, more members were added by baptism and two additional congregations, Coventry and Conestoga, were organized. Under the leadership of Conrad Beissel, a minister in the Conestoga congregation, a new schism developed in 1728, which led to the establishment of the Ephrata Society in Lancaster County.
Through the 19th and 20th centuries we experimented with various denominational polity models. The major elements included the following: What kinds of issues should be determined at the Annual Conference level; How should these decisions be enforced; and How shall we deal with disagreement and dissent.
As early as 1805 it was decided that members who would not heed the conclusions of the "Yearly Meeting" and who would not conduct themselves accordingly should be denied the privilege of participating in the Love Feast "until they learn to do better and become obedient." By 1850 it was decided that "it is wrong for brethren to go against the counsel of our great Annual Meeting." By 1860, the minutes declare that "the decisions of the Annual Meeting are obligitory..."
Throughout the 19th century, hundreds of questions or queries were brought to the Annual Meeting from the churches. At several Annual Meetings the number of queries (or articles) brought for action exceeded fifty and in 1862, seventy-two articles were reported in the minutes. As the body of conference decisions grew and became more complex, disagreement and dissent also increased. Basically, it was the responsibility of the presiding elder (bishop or housekeeper) to enforce conference rules within his church. When this was not sufficient to maintain order, the Annual Meeting appointed a committee to visit the church and attempt to affect reconciliation and establish order. The first such committee noted in the minutes was in 1849, when a committee was dispatched to the Bachelor's Run church in Carroll Co., Indiana. The second committee, in 1850, came to the Eel River church in Wabash and Kosciusko counties. Between 1849 and 1885, two hundred and fourteen committees were dispatched, some repeats to the same church! Several years there were 13 or 14 committees appointed and given assignments. Much of the controversy was related to the "great divide" in 1881 and 1882 when the Old German Baptists and the Progressive Brethren separated and organized as independent bodies.
This kind of reaction on the part of the Annual Conference obviously did not control and prevent dissent within the church. After the 1880's efforts by the Annual Conference to enforce conference decisions gradually tapered off. It just couldn't be done!
All along, if individuals and congregations felt strongly about resisting conference rulings, they just acted accordingly and did it! In 1838 a conference decision ruled against Sunday-schools. However, a Sunday School was started in the White Oak congregation in Pennsylvania in 1845. In 1857 the conference action was softened a bit and by 1862 Sunday Schools were permitted if conducted by brethren and in 1870 it was permitted to hold Sunday Schools in the meeting houses. In 1871 it was decided that if holding Sunday Schools would cause trouble or division, Brethren had better desist from introducing them.
Brethren had long believed that baptisms should be held outdoors in streams with running water. Eventually, some wanted to build baptismal pools inside the church. This violated two aspects of the tradition: it was inside and it was not running water. Some churches went ahead and built indoor baptistries anyway. The Philadelphia church, perhaps feeling guilty about their violation of a conference ruling, would leave the water faucet running during a baptismal service.
Ministers could not be ordained if they did not wear a beard. Beardless candidates were simply refused the advancement rites. It was especially important that the highest level of ministry, the elder or bishop, wear a beard. As early as 1804 it was emphasized that bishops had to be men with beards. Their reasons: "God made man with a beard, and again God commended his people in the law not to cut off the beard, and it was especially required of the priests of God not to mar the corners of the beard, and also Christ, our Master and precursor, together with his disciples, has left us an example herein..." Well into the 20th century some districts were still enforcing the beard policy, refusing to ordain beardless men to the ministry and especially refusing to ordain a man to the eldership if he didn't have a beard. In one case in Eastern Pennsylvania, the elders had to persuade the congregation to accept a beardless candidate. Someone said, "He couldn't raise one if he tried to." They finally accepted him but the beard was still required for the eldership (the 3rd degree). Again in Eastern Pennsylvania it was 1926 when a beardless Frank Carper was ordained an elder in the Palmyra congregation. One kindly elder explained, "The Lord doesn't expect us to do what we can't do!"
Out west in Indiana the Brethren got progressive a little earlier. We tolerated beardless ministers and elders before the turn of the 20th century. When Otho Winger was elected to his first term as moderator of Annual Conference in 1921, a newspaper report referred to him as "the first beardless moderator ever chosen". So when Annual Conference recognized that so many people did not, would not, or could not grow a beard, the policy was gradually changed. It is interesting to note that in this case, at least, limiting physiology was recognized as a contributing factor resulting in a change in conference policy.
Even through all these times of promulgating strict policies and regulations, the conference delegates seemed to be sensitive to those who might object or disagree with the decisions. There seemed to be anticipation and even expectation that objectors would present their case against said policy and try to convince the delegates to change the policy. In 1804, referring to members who "would not heed, nor conduct themselves accordingly, it has been concluded unitedly, that when such persons cannot convince the Church by evidence from Holy Scripture...." In 1850, the conference said it was wrong for brethren to go against the counsel of the Annual Meeting, "...but should brethren not be satisfied with said counsel, they have liberty, with the consent of their church, to bring the matter before another Yearly Meeting, for a reconsideration." In 1858 it was noted that "if a housekeeper [elder or moderator] with a part, or all, of the members of his church, could not be satisfied with the decisions of the Annual Council...they should bear with the Annual Council, and with one another, until the next Annual Meeting, and then bring their grievances to the Annual Council where they proceeded from, and, we believe, full satisfaction will be obtained." In 1880 it was said "that all the brethren should labor, as far as they can, to observe the decisions of Annual Meeting, and that the officers of the churches should labor carefully and judiciously to have the churches to carry them out until they are changed, if a change is desirable, and will bring us nearer the Gospel."
After the Great Divide of the 1880's there were fewer "enforceable rules" carried over into the Church of the Brethren. The matter of a prescribed style of clothing was a major topic for several decades. The famous "dress decision of 1911" made failure to conform to the acceptable dress code of the Brethren a "test of membership", that is, a member could be disfellowshipped for violating various provisions of the dress code, the "order of the Brethren". A member could be "kicked out of the church" for wearing a hat, a necktie, or any other fashionable item of clothing. It was an "enforceable rule". And enforce it they did! Council meeting minutes for several decades were filled with accounts of members brought before the church for various violations. But members still continued to shift to more modern, socially acceptable clothing styles in harmony with the prevailing styles of their communities. Many congregations became reluctant to enforce these rules. Several desperation queries calling for stricter enforcement of a number of distinctive practices of the church came to the conference in 1926. A substitute motion that did not spell out specific rules but called instead for teaching the simple life and refrain from immodest dress and jewelry, among other generalizations, was adopted.
By 1931 it became clear that Annual Conference could not enforce specific rules as a means of sustaining church doctrines. Instead, says Carl Bowman, "the new Brethren habit was to accommodate individual interpretation by sprinkling rulings with qualifying phrases and by emphasizing general principle over specific application." Loren Bowman, former General Secretary, said, "Except for those 'growing-up-years' when authority was centered in the Elders Body of the congregation and the Standing Committee of Annual Conference, the church has consistently allowed 'breathing room' for those with divergent opinions. Rarely has the church used its authority to smother dissent or to discipline groups which espoused convictions out of harmony with the stated position of the denomination." As recent as 1979, a conference statement said: "Individuality requires freedom. Respect for freedom is seen in our traditional Brethren belief in 'no force in religion', and so we avoid patterns of enforcement which violate the freedom of individuals and local groups."
In recent years, we have tried to be aware of those who might disagree with a particular action being considered. Sometimes this sensitivity and compassion has been written into the text of the paper. In one of the best-known papers on the "Position and Practices of the Church of the Brethren in relation to War", first adopted in 1948, we said: "The church itself respects the right of individual conscience within its membership and has never set up an authoritative creed. :Instead, it accepts the entire New Testament as its rule of faith and practice and seeks to lead its members to comprehend and accept for themselves the mind of Christ as the guide for their conviction and conduct...it recognized that various positions on war and military service will be taken by its members...church seeks to maintain a fellowship of all who sincerely follow the guidance of conscience." By 1970, in the fourth revision of this paper, we said, "We recognize that some feel obligated to render full or noncombative military service and we respect all who make such a decision."
In a 1971 paper which opposed abortion, we included these statements: "...our position is not a condemnation of those persons who reject this position or of women who seek and undergo abortions. Rather, it is a call for Christ-like compassion in seeking creative alternatives to abortion. We support persons who, after prayer and counseling, believe abortion is the least destructive alternative available to them, that they may make their decision openly, honestly, without the suffering imposed by an uncompromising community."
In 1973, we considered the matter of refusal to pay taxes that would be used for military purposes. We included this statement: "We plead for a mutual and brotherly honoring of one another in this matter. To those whose reading of Scripture leads them conscientiously to pay their full tax requirement, may they recognize the sincere Christian intention of the withholders in their desire to protest against what the New Testament clearly identifies as the sinfulness and demonism of war. To those who because of their Christian conviction conscientiously feel that they must withhold payment in some degree, may they realize that their brethren who pay are themselves striving to be obedient to the instruction of Scripture and dare not be assumed to be any less dedicated to the Prince of Peace than are those who withhold."
Other examples could be cited. Both in statement and in practice, we have tried to accommodate in love those who did not agree with the majority. In 1941, the conference voted to affiliate our denomination with the Federal Council of Churches (later to become the National Council of Churches of Christ in America) and the soon to be formed World Council of Churches. The minutes that year report that "the question was fully discussed at some length. By a very large majority the delegates voted to affiliate." The very next year (1942) a query was brought from the District of Middle Pennsylvania asking Annual Conference to reconsider "the question of membership of the Church of the Brethren in the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America". The conference delegates agreed [to reconsider the question] and "following this reconsideration the position of 1941 was re-affirmed."
Nevertheless, there was continued agitation against our membership in the NCC and WCC. In 1944, the Standing Committee brought a proposal "that a committee of five be appointed to study the facts concerning the Federal Council, together with the general attitude of the brotherhood to it, to the end that our people may have dependable information, and that the unity of the church may be maintained." The committee included C.C.Ellis, C.D.Bonsack, J.Clyde Forney, Edward Kintner, and W.H.Yoder. They presented a written report printed in the conference booklet and a supplementary report distributed at the conference, which was held at Manchester College in North Manchester, Indiana. The committee recommended "that the Church of the Brethren continue its co-operation with the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America until the Holy Spirit leads otherwise." After a long and sometimes bitter debate, the conference approved the recommendation of the committee by a vote greater than 80%.
In 1966, the Southern District of Pennsylvania sent a query "to consider again whether or not the Church of the Brethren should remain in the National Council of Churches, and if so the feasibility of raising the budgeted amount for the Council through voluntary contributions." A committee of seven was appointed, including Harold D. Fasnacht, Richard A. Bollinger, Warren F. Groff, Harold S. Martin, W. Hartman Rice, Dan West, C.Wayne Zunkel. The committee recommended in 1968 that the "Church of the Brethren continue its full participation in the National Council of Churches; and that the church continue its budgeted support of the NCC through the Brotherhood Fund." The committee said further that "opportunity be provided to honor the convictions of those who wish to designate that none of the money they give to the Brotherhood Fund shall go to the National Council of Churches. We recognize the sincerity of the congregations and individuals who cannot conscientiously support our affiliation with the National Council."
In spite of all this consideration and accommodation of the objectors to membership in the National Council, the Atlantic Northeast District brought another query in 1980 asking Annual Conference to "study and re-evaluate our affiliation with the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches." This time a committee of seven was appointed: Paul W. Brubaker, Phyllis Carter, Eloise Eberly, Paul M. Robinson, David J. Wieand, S. Loren Bowman, and Allen B. Hollinger. Their very lengthy report (15 pages) included the "unanimous" decision to recommend that we continue our membership in both the NCC and the WCC."
And still another query came from the Southeastern District in 1983 asking conference to "consider the withdrawal of our Brotherhood from the [National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches]." This time the conference recognized the concerns of the query but asked instead that the churches of the Southeastern District "prayerfully study the Annual Conference paper (of 1981), giving special attention to the reasons given for continued membership in both organizations."
After more than 60 years of repeated and detailed studies and proposals, all of which overwhelmingly approved our participation in the National and World Councils, there are still a lot of individuals and congregations who are unrepentant as far as this issue is concerned. I see churches with signs in their windows or bulletin boards saying THIS CHURCH DOES NOT SUPPORT THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES. Even the very influential Brethren Revival Fellowship lists as one of its main concerns "our denomination's participation in the National and World Councils of Churches (and their local affiliates) with their slant toward syncretism, and their reimagining God and allowing room for multiple gods and goddesses."
The very important 1979 paper on Biblical Inspiration and Authority raises the question, "How can we hold one another in love and fellowship when there exists a diversity of attitudes among us about the way in which scripture was given and its interpretation? ...There have been times in our history when the Brethren have fallen into the error of insistence on rigid conformity, when we as church members either agreed or we were disfellowshipped. It is the love experienced when Christ is at the center of one's life, that draws us into unity. We do not create unity or fellowship. They are gifts. When our lives are Christ-centered, we can disagree without being bitter or divisive."
We take a casual, almost blasé, attitude toward most instances of disobeying Annual Conference actions. In 1972 Annual Conference said: "The Church of the Brethren has consistently and repeatedly stated its opposition to the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of alcoholic beverages. We, therefore, recommend and urge Brethren to abstain from the manufacture, sale, or use of alcoholic beverages." How much support has this received from the membership? A more recent paper in 1976 included the results from a survey which showed that an estimated 25% of adult members use alcohol and even 13% of the pastors said they use alcohol.
In 1977, an action of Annual Conference mandated that an equitable and representative number of blue-collar workers and farmers be included (and presumably identified) in the Annual Conference ballot. I haven't seen this happen yet. Maybe we have had some second thoughts about this kind of sorting of candidates.
In 1922 this question came: "[does] any church board or committee [have] the right to publish any doctrinal statement as the position of the church [the denomination] when the church has not put itself on record on the doctrine involved." Answer: NO. During the discussion of this matter on the floor of conference, one of our distinguished church leaders said: "I do not see, nor did the Standing Committee, how any church Board or committee had the right or has the right to publish any doctrinal statement as the position of the church if the church has not spoken on that doctrine. How can you answer it any other way? Are we going to put in the hands of any group of folks and give them the right to speak for the church?" Nevertheless, we have had, and have today, individuals and groups publishing statements and pamphlets claiming to be the "doctrines and beliefs of the Church of the Brethren".
In 1981, conference said that "every family unit in the congregation [should] regularly receive Messenger." How are we doing on this one?
In 1968 we said: "The Church of the Brethren accepts the concept of the minister as one who seeks no special privilege but shares the life of his people." I've not seen many ministers who would refuse a special discount on purchases of various sorts, or any other type of special treatment. We're pretty sensitive on this issue, but those discounts sure look good!
Here's another one for pastors: In 1981, conference directed pastors to preach ten sermons each year which "shall explore unique teachings of the Church of the Brethren." Did you know that? Our staff (and Board) missed a good opportunity to provide pastors with resource material on this point. We might have circulated sermon topics, outlines, etc. to help meet this guideline.
Just last year in Louisville, conference approved a "resolution on the Brethren Church". Part of the effort was the preparation of a study packet sent out by the General Board for use in local congregations. Each congregation was to study this material dealing with our relation to the Brethren Church (First Brethren, Progressive Brethren, or Ashland Brethren Church). Over 1,400 packets were mailed to the pastor of each congregation, associate pastors, district staff, national staff, Standing Committee members, and the officers of Annual Conference. How are you coming on this study in your congregation?
Each pastor and each congregation could well be encouraged to study the minutes of each Annual Conference to determine which (if any) items of business have special relevance to members and local congregations.
We have not been very successful in forcing compliance of Annual Conference rulings by individuals or congregations. In most cases, both individuals and congregations simply did what they wanted in spite of the conference action. Throughout most of the 20th century the emphasis has been on recognizing diversity and trying to encourage support by study and persuasion. Even this does not seem to work.
Perhaps we have failed to be fully committed to the efficacy of council meeting discussions as presented in Acts 15. Incidentally, for many years we read the complete chapter 15 of the books of Acts at the beginning of each Annual Conference business meeting. Some years ago I wrote, in the introduction to the Manual of Polity and Organization, "Annual Conference is not a place for predetermined points of view representing specific constituencies to be debated, as in a secular political legislative assembly. It is a setting where people come together to consider questions before the church and to seek the will of God through prayerful debate and Bible study." This has been reprinted in the Conference Booklet each year.
Perhaps we don't expect to receive new light. Maybe we don't want to receive new light. Maybe we don't want to change. Maybe we are afraid of new light, new information, new opinions. A good brother from Pennsylvania said at the beginning of the debate on the "ordination of homosexuals" issue last summer, "I am deeply troubled by this issue...only because of this: if dialog is allowed to continue, I fear that opinions, feelings will be created that shouldn't be allowed in this room, and shouldn't be in our hearts really...My fear is that if we listen to a lot of dialog, all this dialog is really trying to either convince or unconvince us of our positions, if we already have one. I believe God is somewhat tired of our opinions and dialog and I believe, concerning this issue, I think he's possibly holding his hands over his ears."
Maybe that's it. Just...maybe.
William R. Eberly
North Manchester, Indiana
May 3, 2003
|
|
|
