Journal of United Brethren History and Life
A Publication of the United Brethren Historical Society Number4 •July, 2003
Wilbur and Orville Wright relax on the front porch of the Wright family home at 7 Hawthorne, Dayton, Ohio, circa 1910. They had built the porch themselves in 1892. This issue contains articles on the legacy of the Wright Brothers and their father, Milton. Journal of United Brethren History and Life
Number 4. July, 2003 "The Legacy of the Wrights/The Legacy of Pietism"
The Legacy of the Wrights
Wright Reading: Recommended Literature on the Centennial of Flight by Anthony L. Blair 1 The Faith and Death of Wilbur Wright: Letters by His Father 8 Milton Wright at York: Press Reports from the Schism of1889 17
The Legacy of Pietism
The Influence of German Pietism on the United Brethren: Revivalism, Reform, and Sanctification by Michael Allen Mudge 22 Martin Boehm, Pietist and Methodist by Nathan Bangs 42 The Missionary Life of Lloyd Eby in Sierra Leone, 1944-47 by]oniR.Michaud. 49
Editor Anthony L. Blair, Eastern University Editorial Board Chaney Bergdall, Huntington College Daryl Elliott, Church of the United Brethren in Christ Paul Fetters, Huntington College Kirby Keller, Evangelical School of Theology Paul Michelson, Huntington College Randy Neuman, Huntington College Ray Seilhamer, Huntington College About the Journal
The journal of United Brethren History and Life is a publication of the United Brethren Historical Society. The Historical Society is an organization of United Brethren ministers, laypersons, and friends who seek to preserve and celebrate the heritage of the United Brethren movement.
Membership is open to all individuals interested in the history of the United Brethren Church. Institutional memberships ($35.00) include a subscription to the Journal ofUnited Brethren History and Ufe and the United Brethren Historical Center Newsletter only. Patron memberships ($100.00) are for individuals wishing to contribute to the operation and major projects of the Historical Society. Individual ($20.00) and patron memberships in the History- Society include voting privileges at die annual meeting, a subscription to the journal ofUnited Brethren History and Ufe and the UBHC Newsletter, reduced prices on Historical Society publications and events, andborrowing privileges at the United Brethren Historical Center Library.
Both the Historical Society and theJournal draw heavily upon the resources provided by The United Brethren Historical Center at Huntington College. Interested parties may contact the Historical Society or the Historical Center at the following address:
Mr. Randy Neuman, Director United Brethren Historical Center Richlyn Library Huntington College Huntington, Indiana 46750
Guidelines for Manuscript Submissions
Unsolicited manuscripts on the history and life of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ and related organizations are welcome. While essays that focus on United Brethren personalities, events, and locations are accepted, those that interpret the U.B. movement within a broader historical context are particularly sought. The Journal prints scholarly essays, certain types of popular narrative, book reviews, announcements, and occasionally items of a miscellaneous nature.
Query letters are appreciated. Unsolicited manuscripts will not be returned. Send all submissions as an email attachment or on floppy disk. Hard copies are not encouraged. Microsoft Word is supported.
Those wishing to review books, or with suggestions on books to be reviewed, should contact the editor. Direct all query letters, suggestions, comments, and submission to the editor as follows: Dr. Anthony L. Blair, Eastern University, 750 East Park Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17111. Email: ablair(o>eastern.edu In This Volume
History is a study of causes and consequences, a search for what happened and why it happened. It is, at its best, a quest-for explanations, for connections, and for meanings. Few words convey the delight of the historian's craft more than "legacy," for a legacy is a gift from past to the future, an inheritance from those who came before.
This volume explores two legacies that have profoundly affected the United Brethren movement. The first is the Wright family of Dayton. They are known to the world—and celebrated this year—for the invention of the airplane. They are better known to the United Brethren as the leading family of the Radical United Brethren during and following the Schismof 1889.
This legacy is explored in three pieces. The first is a review of two biographies of the Wright brothers. The second is a collection of letters from Milton Wright that portray them in very personal terms, as only a proud father could. He explores their faith, their relationship witheach other, and their relationship with the church. More poignantly, he describes Wilbur's final sickness and death, and defends his own decisions regarding Wilbur's funeral. The trouble-making Milton Wright apparently generated controversy even in these most private and sorrowful of moments. The third is a collection of excepts from The York Gazette on May 14, 1889, the day after Milton Wright led a minority group out of the General Conference to commence the division of the denomination into warring factions.
The second legacy explored herein is that of a movement, not a family. German Pietism was a reaction against the Lutheran scholasticism of the 17th and 18th centuries. It was against this backdrop that William Otterbein and Martin Boehm experienced their conversions and on this theological foundation that the United Brethren Church was constructed.
Michael Allen Mudge explores at length the legacy of pietism in the church, as evidenced primarily in the social reform and sanctification movements of the 19th century. The fifth piece is an excerpt from an old Methodist history, which not only describes the influence of pietism on Martin Boehm, but also hints that his passions may have led him beyond the United Brethren in his later years. Pietism also served as one of the impulses of the missionary movement. Joni Michaud discussesthe missionary career of Lloyd Eby, future United Brethren bishop, and how his sacrifices in Sierra Leone were motivated by his desirefor the transformation of souls. Wright Reading: Recommended Literature on the Centennial of Flight Anthony L. Blair
Early on the morning of May 25, 1910, three passengers stepped off the Dayton, Springfield and Urbana interurban at a simple wooden platform marked Simms Station. They had ridden the eight miles out of their home in Dayton, Ohio, in less than half an hour. The trip had become a part of the fabric of their daily lives during the past six years, but for Wilbur and Orville Wright and their father Milton, this was a special day. They watted for thetrain to pull away, then crossed the road and walked through the gate into the field that eveiyone in this part of Greene County knew as Huffman Prairie. The hangar door was open, and a small party of workmen were [sic] already wheeling out an airplane. It was one of the new machines, a Model B. Milton thought the craft looked smaller than the 1905 Flyer he had seen the boysfly here so often; it didn't have thebigelevator out front. This one had wheels, as well. The days of catapulting the machine down a long track and into the air were gone forever. Orville, who was doing all the flying now, went to work immediately. Wilbur stayedmth his father, explaining the preparations needed to get the machine safely intothe air. They were at it all day.... Late that afternoon, Wilbur took a seat on the exposed lower wing next to his brother. They circled the fieldforjust over six minutes. It was the only time they would ever fly together, something they had promised theirfather they would never do. Just this once, for the sakeof history, he had relented. Then it was Milton's turn. The old man had never flown before. The opportunity had always been there—be had simply never asked. Now he climbed up next to his youngest son for the first time. They remained aloftfor 6 minutes, 55 seconds, never climbing above 350 feet. Orville had been unnecessarily worried about his father's reaction. At one point during the flight Milton leaned closeto his son's ear and shouted above the combined roar of engine, propellers, and slipstream: "Higher, Orville. Higher."
Thus begins Tom Crouch's 1989 biography of the Wright brothers. This opening vignette, along with the tide of his volume (The Bishop's Bojs), illustrates his thesis: that the character and success of the brothers cannotbe understood apart from the character of their father, the indomitable bishop, "second founder" of the United Brethren in Christ (Old Constitution). This is the year of the Wrights, as the centennial of their pioneering (one cannot properly call it "groundbreaking") flight is celebrated in Ohio, in North Carolina, and all over the world. Even now, the significance of their achievement is difficult to put into context. One hundred years prior to their flight, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark were gathering supplies in preparation for their trek across the still-unknown continent of North America. That trip of thousands of miles was completed solely under the power of men and animals. One hundred years after the Wrights, flying has become blase. We live with an international space station over our heads and talk seriously about flying to Mars. The flight at Kitty Hawk was the first of many historic, pioneering events of the twentieth century. The era of the automobile had already begun,but the Model T, which was to truly revolutionize transportation, was not introduced until 1908. The conquest of the North and South Poles occurred in the following two decades. The atom was harnessed in the 1940s. Humans traveled to the highest and lowest places on earth in the 1950s and 60s. They traveled to the moon in the 1960s, produced a desktop computer in the 1980s, and mapped the human genome in the1990s. Today we take such achievements almost for granted. Wilbur and Orville Wright did not. For all of human history, men, women, and children had envied the birds, had dreamtof soaring through the air, andhad imagined the freedom of flight. Others had realized that dream, at least to some degree, prior to the Wrights, of course. The first hot-air balloon flight took place in France at the end of the eighteenth century. But it wasn't until 1903 that onewas ableto make a flying machine go where its operator willed, to ascend and descend by its own power, to turn with the wind. Those seemingly simple acts, which can now be achieved by mere children with machines that can be bought as kits and assembled in a backyard, presented nearly insurmountable obstacles to the best scientific minds of the late nineteenth century. James Tobin, in his book To Conquer the Air, notes that flight was possible, in an engineering sense, only after three objectives were achieved: the invention of an engine powerful enough to lift a machine off the ground yet light enough to be carried by that machine; the development of wings and propellers that could produce more lift than drag; and the creation of a unprecedented means of balance, so the craft could respond to the wind like a bird. In order to accomplish thesethree objectives, the Wrights had to acquire a thorough understanding of scientific disciplines that were still in their infancy. When they could not locate a gasoline engine that met their specifications, they made their own. When they discovered that ship propellers were not optimally designed for propulsion, they designed and constructed better ones. When they figured out that balance was the key to flight, they invented a novel system of wing-warping. They built their own wind tunnel into their shop at Dayton and ran scientific tests that revealed deficiencies in the calculations of some of the most heralded scientific minds in the world. And they continually found new ways to improve upon their work. They had competitors, most of whom were better-financed and better-known. Chief of them wasSamuel Pierpont Langley, head of the Smithsonian Institute, who managed to secure $70,000 of government money for the creation and testing of his aerodrome, which repeatedly and publicly fell into the Potomac River during trials. Alexander Graham Bell, famous for the invention of the telephone, likewise entered into the fray with a tetrahedron design for a kite-like flying machine. There were European competitors as well, particularly Alberto Santos-Dumont. And, finally, the most dangerous challenger of all was revealed in Glenn Hammond Curtiss, the famous motorcyclist turned airplane manufacturer who produced the Curtiss JN-4A (known affectionately by World War I pilots as the "Jenny") and with whom they wrangled for years in legal disputes over patents and royalties. The climax of Tobin's book (and even the subject of his front cover illustration) is thepublic triumph of Wilbur Wright over Curtiss in New York in 1909, symbolized by Wright's circling of theStatue of Liberty, as thousands from the city watched and cheered...and Curtiss remained grounded. So why did the Wright Brothers succeed where others had failed? Why were they the first human beings on the face of the globe to create a workable means of air travel? The truly amazing story of the beginnings of flight is not that it occurred; many by 1900 considered it inevitable. The truly amazing story of flight is that it was initiated by two unknown and relatively uneducated bicycle salesmen from Dayton, Ohio. Their unlikeliness for the role of flight pioneers is much of the charm and fascination of this tale. Thus, to understand why these two relatively insignificant men succeeded where others did not, one has to comprehend a few things about their background, particularly their family. And no one is more important to understand than their father. Tom Crouch understands and portrays him quite well. Crouch's volume, which won the Cristopher Award in 1990, presents the complicated character of Milton Wright in a way that is neither patronizing nor dismissive. Milton Wright was many things—controversial, feisty, and stubborn. It would be tempting to say that there was little of the gentleness of Christ in him, but it would be equally tempting to call him a warrior for the kingdom. He led a walk-out of the 1889 General Conference and insisted to his dying day that the majority had left his church, rather than the other way around. [See excerpts from the 1889 York Gazette elsewhere in this volume.] WTiile still serving as bishop, he was expelled from his home conference in 1903 in what is known as the Keiter affair(after Millard F. Keiter, the United Brethren publishing agent whom Milton accused of fraud). He fought that battle in the church and in the press through the 1905 General Conference, which reversed the White River Conference decision. He simply would not back down. His sons had litde of their father's fiery temperament or passion for controversy, yet there was considerable steel in their character. When confronted by a seemingly insurmountable obstacle, they did not shrink from it, but attacked it repeatedly and from different perspectives until they found a way to overcome and move on.Likewise, Wilbur served as his father's chief assistant through the countless legal hassles in which Milton was engaged in the decades following the schism of 1889. Thus, when it came time to protect their patent, the brothers had little compunction about using the courts. Later, when the Smithsonian insisted on giving Langley what Orville considered undue credit in the development of the airplane, he refused to display the 1903 flyer. It remained in London, out of the country, until after his death in 1948. It is part of the fascination of Crouch's volume that he was, at the time of writing, the chair of the department of aeronautics at the National Air and Space Museum, a Smithsonian entity. He writes authoritatively about that particular longstanding dispute. The Wrights would not be hurried. When Langley announced a public demonstration of his machine just as theirs was being tested, they refused to advance their schedule. They would not prove their airplane until they were sure of success. Their policy was justified by Langley's very public embarrassment. Later, after they had flown, they refused to fly publicly again for six years, during which time they endured widespread skepticism from both the general public and the scientific community'. Even when competitors produced their own machines and began flying them publicly, the Wrights would not be moved. They were astute businessmen. They wanted more than credit. They wanted to protect their patent, which meant limiting public exposure to the machine until they had secured contracts for its sale or mass production. Again, their policy proved eventually to be justified. Others not raised in the atmosphere of stubborn perseverance of Milton Wright may not have held out so successfully. Tobin does not do as well with this aspect of the story (although he, too, is an award-winner for this book: The J. Anthony Lukas Work-in- Progress Award in this case). Like Crouch, he notes the influence of the father on the sons. After all, both remained lifelong bachelors and lived in their father's house until middle age. But Tobin struggles to understand Milton's character, even as he struggles to understand the equally complicated character of Milton's church. Besides his irritating practice of referringto the church as "The Brethren" (apparently ignorant of the other "brethren" groups that are known by that shorter appellation), he treats the denominational conflicts in a simplistic and patronizing manner, never fully grasping the principles and issues at stake. Milton Wright may be rightly be regarded as too quick to battle, but he should not be regarded as a knee-jerk radical. He was much too smart for that. Indeed, it is his intellect that proved to be his best gift to his sons. Rather than rejecting scientific inquiry, as some of his spiritual descendants would do in later generations, he encouraged it in his sons. He was tremendously proud of their skill and success, and even more proud of their character, as the letters that follow in this volume attest. It was from his wide-ranging library that they, especially Wilbur, were introduced to the world of ideas. When Wilbur was unable to attend Yale University because of injury, he turned to his father's library and read voraciously. Dismissed as an uneducated Midwestern yokel, he was perhaps the most suitably educated contestant in the race for flight. It was not only their relationship with their father that gave the Wrights brothers an edge. Their relationship witheach other was remarkable and contributed greatly to their success. Quiet around strangers, they were unrestrained with each other. They disagreed freely, and even wrote critical letters to each other when apart, yet respected each other immensely. They could easily learn from each other. When one was stumped, the other provided inspiration. When one was wavering, the other provided backbone. When one was injured or ill, the other was strong. Theirs was a true partnership. Crouch subtitles his book A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright. The use of the singular "life" for a dual biography is curious but appropriate. They were four years apart in age and different in appearance. Wilbur seems to have taken after his mother Susan's family more so than Orville. They had two older brothers (Lorin and Reuchlin) and a younger sister (Katharine), and she remained unmarried and at home until her middle age as well, playing a vital supporting role in their enterprise. Yet these two brothers were of one passion and, ultimately, of one mind. Although Orville survived his brother by thirty-five years, yet somehow even those decades were an extension of their life together. They truly lived "a life" of joint purpose and activity. Their relationship with their father's church, and his faith, has always been questionable. Tobin points out that they were no longer churchgoers by their thirties and Orville is said to have died a member of the Methodist church. This particular issue was taken up by Milton Wright on the occasion of Wilbur's death. Letters in this volume never-before published give new insights into their faith, church affiliation, and religious practice. Milton, a fervent evangelical, believed he would see his son in heaven and therefore credited to him a saving faith. He explained away their lack of church membership or participation in one place as the result of expulsion due to jealousy and in another to the demise of their society. He thus did not answer all of the questions about the religious faith of his sons, and one is always cautious when accepting the testimony of a parent about the religion of one's children. Nevertheless, Wilbur and Orville Wright illustrate a problem for the United Brethren. Why is it that a number of its most famous members or parishioners did not choose to stay with the church? Today the church proudly claims the Wrights as their own, but it is obvious that, for one reason or another, by the age of thirty or so, the brothers did not return the favor. The church likewise likes to point out that Francis Scott Key was helping to establish United Brethren Sunday Schools in Maryland in the early 1800s, but Key never abandoned his membership in the Episcopal Church and his affiliation with the United Brethren was brief. Even Martin Boehm, founding bishop of the church, may have to some degree separated himself by his death. Francis Asbury, the Methodist bishop who preached his sermon, and Henry Boehm, his Methodist minister son, both imply that there was a breach of some sort in Boehm's relationship with the United Brethren. (See essay on Boehm in this volume.) We shall probably never know for certain. The story of the Wrights perhaps illustrates both the best and the worst of the United Brethren at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was a church founded on a message of new life that was struggling to stay alive after a decade or two of schism. It was a church with "united" in its name that was yet so divided as to be engaged in lawsuits between its factions in secular courts. It was a church that so valued holiness and the transformation of society that it was more willing to surrender unity and peace than to compromise principle. It was a church so liberal as to practice racial integration and to license women ministers and yet so conservative as to deny membership to freemasons and social drinkers. It was a church that believed so strongly in education that it founded colleges, so fervently in the written word that it published books and magazines, so firmly in missions that it evangelized West Africa, and so powerfully in all of the above that it would fight even itself for thecontrol of its institutions. One hundred years later, the Wright Flyer is a museum piece. It hangs in the Smithsonian at last and has been seen there by millions of the world's citizens. Yet right down the hall are the capsules of the early space missions. The Wright plane seems somehow an anachronism, a machine out of time, too far removed from the modern imagination to be fully appreciated. It contains a mannequin, an artificial Wright, lying prone on the body of the plane, hands on the rudder, in a position and on a platform that strikes the viewer as simultaneously vulnerable and ludicrous. We know better now. There's a better way to fly a plane. The Church of the United Brethren in Christ could likewise become an anachronism, a museum piece for church historians to dissect and discuss. In some ways it resembles that old biplane. It has far more in common with the church of Milton Wright than today's airplanes do with the machine invented by his sons. We may be tempted at times to dismiss it as a relic, a product of a different time and place, unable to master the challenges of the twenty-first century. Yet we must acknowledge that even today's jet airplanes are built upon the same principles as the Wright flyer—an engine powerful enough to lift the plane yet light enough to be carried aloft, a propulsion system that provides more lift than drag, and a means of balance that allows the machine to turn at will. The church could do so well. And it yet may.
The volumes discussed in this essay:
Crouch, Tom. The Bishop's Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. 1989. Tobin, James. To Conquer the Air: The Wright Brothers and the Great Racefor Flight. New York: The Free Press, 2002. The Faith andDeath of Wilbur Wright: Letters by His Father
Wilbur and Orville Wright are regularly claimed by the United Brethren as children of the church, primarily because of their identity as children of Bishop Milton Wright. Yet both brothersdied outside of the membership of the United Brethren. They have variously been described as having rejected their father's church or even their father's faith. The following letters provide a somewhat different understanding.
They were selected from those written by Milton Wright to his friend and colleague J. Howe. They discuss the illness and death of Wilbur Wright and give never-before-published insights into the spiritual life and church affiliation of the famous brothers. Milton Wright seems to be aware thatthat he is writing for posterity, and is anxious to set the record straight on various issues concerning his sons.
Theseand other Milton Wright letters are preserved at the United Brethren Historical Center at Huntington College.
The following letter, written seven years before the others printed here, reveals more of Milton Wright's character than it does of his sons. He was still fighting with the Liberals for control of various conferences of the Church, and was also deeply embattled in the Keiter affair, which had resulted in his (temporary) expulsion by the White River Conference.
He also lets Rev. Howe into a secret. The Wright brothers had first flown at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in December, 1903, as the whole world knows. After that date, however, they did not fly publicly for six years. They had obtained a patent for their machine, and were seriously concerned about the possibility of patent infringement by competitors. They were also working feverishly to perfect their flying machine in anticipation of selling it to the U.S. or other government. Their practice flights at Huffman Prairie were low altitude and somewhat secret. Thus Milton's caution to his friend. The first paragraph is so full of private allusions and early twentieth century "slang" as to be nearly unintelligible. But one can see there—and following—some deeply critical observations of colleagues and subordinates.
(Dayton, Ohio Sept. 27, 1905
(Dear (Bro. J.Howe,
I was happy to have yourfetteroj'yesterday. Yes, Sandusky isfuttof "second wor^" But more churchty than is that persuasion usuady. Theirpres. Elder is their Best- balanced man, unless Hitty equals him. Lussing shouldfather up the loyal in Tennessee. They need the "secondwor^ down there to (eveCthem up to a living standard. Enterprise there is erotic. Cost is costly andnot as goodas "a cCean chip in a mushpot," tho' myfriend. He wiltmafte an 'Evangelistfraction within a year. Mrs. %j has Been in the secretaryshipfor three yearsfor the money, and to uphold(Becker e£ %piter, an insuBordination. She schemes to perpetuate her reign. Holdfast to Miss 'WoodsforAfrica. The riddance ofMcMunn was desiraBk, unless regenerated. He is now out of the church, as weltas out of the conference. He was conceited andinsuBordinate and pestilentialBefore he Budded into a Bishop. With a grain ofsincerity an ounce of humility, and a tithe ofconservatism, he wouldhave Been very usefuC One tenth of Ctapp anda douBle portion of the Spirit would mafie another very useful man. 'What a pity men mar on the (Potter's wheel'. We shallhave some return to loyalty at (Bishop "Woods' ne^t White Confidentially, let me say that I saw WiCBur, yesterday, fly at oneflight, 111/6 miles in 18 min. & 8 seconds. They avoidpuBtication, so asnot to Be annoyedwith a crowd ofspectators. The gasodne gave out, andstopped the engine or he would proBaBty have made 15 or 20 miles. Fraternally, MCton Wright Seven years later Wilbur and Orville were celebrities on both sides of the Adantic. Finally acknowledgedby most as the true inventors of the airplane, their lives had been radically transformed by both fame and wealth. But now there was another problem. Milton Wright was fearful on May 12,1912. His son Wilbur had been ill with a fever for ten days. Originally diagnosed as malaria, it was re-categorized asa "typhoidal fever" on May 8. On May 10 Wilbur wrote his will. Two days later his father remained hopeful, yet he appeared to want to record for history some pertinent information about his son, just in case. (Dayton, Ohio May 5, 1912 (Rev. J. Howe, Huntington, Ind. (Dear brother. Tfiis wi([ inform you that I can not be present at either of the annualmeetings of our Boards, that occur the 7th or 9tft of this month. 'WiCBur too^a fever Friday, the 3rd, and is sic^, though not dangerousCy we hope. I exhort you, to "gird up the (bins ofyour mind," and actfor god and his church.. 'Your Brother, MiCton 'Wright Milton wrote a follow-up letter that same day. (Dayton, Ohio May 5, 1912 (Dear (Brother Howe: I should d^e to meet the educational Board at Hunnington [sic], But (Providence forBids it. It seems to me it is shut up to hard conditions. I do not see that I couCd hefp it any, if I were present. 10 / do not wish to go to Warren. There the (Boardmeets in a house dedicated regularly to the church, and then it wasmoved onto a parsonage Cot, andgiven to a focaC holding. The object was to providefor the holding of it 6y the seceding conference, which rejected(Bishop Woodanddid not dare before our people to own that it had seceded. There Capt. to meet myfriends, but notfalsefriends, who when convicted in their wrong refuse to mafe reparations. I have not a realfriend in Warren, that I faowofjlnd at my age, I need a little especial carefor rest at night, andfood by day, after a stalledstomach, but recently. Wilburgave some of the best efforts of his intellect in thejudicialstruggle that followed thedivision and was defeated only by the Liberals putting Judge Shanc^ a liberal trustee on the bench before every trial in Ohio, on the printing establishment case; and by 'Floydurging Taft twice to hurry up his decision of the case. Without a realstudy of the case, he could mafe no decision, but onlyfait backjan the State court decisions, most against us. Taft had anotherjudge's worf^ Wilbur was not at general conference, and not a candidateforany office, but was zealously urged to not be a member of church [sic], lest he should be elected. Thisnote was also written on May 12. Addressed to no one in particular, it discusses the issue of his family's church membership and personal character. (Dayton, Ohio May 5, 1912 Note. 9A.y daughter has kept her membership with mine, for many years. Orville left his at Summit Street—a zealous radical—tiltat last he ceased to be a member. Neither he nor Wilbur are members anywhere. They close shop Sundays, mosly [sic] stayat home, leave no engagementsfor Sundays—never, unless some subordinate has bargained to have a machine out on Sunday, and then do not more thanfill the contract unwittingly made. They believe business shouldstop one day in seven. They are pure 11 in their speech, they teCConCy the truth, they are much tied about, they never boast what they are going to do. They get along weltwith a lying world. Their words are often given with quotation marfe generally where they have not uttered a word. 'They have many visitorsfrom America andEurope, from the army and the navy. They regard %fltharine as one of them. She is chief host, and well acomplished [sic], a great talker and at home with all the visitors. They treat her as ifshe hadafullshare in their wealth. The greatest social harmony prevails. M.W. They build a dwelling. Thiswee^ they builda three-story business house, this year. They have a large shop, and it engages one of them. Their visitors are by day; few sleep at our house. A letter fourdays later reveals that Wilbur's condition had not much changed. It is also illustrative of Milton's political prowess within his church. (Dayton, Ohio May 16, 1912 (Dear (Bro. How [sic]: "Your card is received. With regard to the question you as^ "What is the privilege of the secretary of the (Boardof missions, with regard to attending distant conferences?", I see no power ofany one but himself, to determine that question. Vet it is within the advisory power of the (Board to settle the question, as to its advice. This advice is worthy of much respect. Jl bare majority is defacto the same as a unanimous vote. (But, the secretary is at liberty to weigh the minority, ashe is not a voting member in such case. His usual course is tofollow the advice. Only grave reasons, wouldjustify its disregard. The same is true of all advisory actions. The board has only advisory power, on this question. It has a right to advise. It also appropriates the expenses. Wilbur'sfever has ^ept up as high as ever. Yesterday, it was a little fower, and, last night, he was a little better than usual. May the Cord be merciful to us! I have, I thinly candidly answeredyour question. 12 'Your Brother, Milton "Wright Wilbur Wright died on May 30 at the age of 45. His funeral service was conducted two days later at the First Presbyterian Church in Dayton by its pastor. In this letter, Milton Wright discusses Wilbur's funeral, in which Rev. Howe had a part. (Dayton, Ohio June 19,1912 (Dear (Brother. 'You were here. I saw you a tittle, when our house was not disinfected, andalmost desoCate. I telegraphedyou and I telegraphed(Bro. Livingston, not expecting he coutdcome. He once tivedat our house, and ever since has Been a specialfriend. He has Been life one of thefamity. (From the start, we had chosen Mr. Maurice 13 Light, "which you readadmirably well (Representing the (RadicalUnited(Brethren Church. "We expectedyou would, in afree obituary or article, give to the Conservator (Readers, an obituary notice. (Dr. (Dillon gave an account of his Cife. "There has been no notice of hisfuneral. I am in good health. OrviHe andKjitharine still loo^as if they hadpassed through a spell of sickness. "They went to "Washington City and "Hew "Ybr^ since thefuneral. It will take monthsfor %atharine to throw off the strain. I am sincerely concernedfor them. Jlfew years at most, and I shalljoin Wilbur on the other shore. Your brother, Milton "Wright Milton Wright apparently felt the need to further defend his use of a non-UB minister and a non-UB church for Wilbur's funeral service. (Dayton, Ohio June 22, 1912 (Rev. J. tfowe "Huntington,Ind. (Dear (Brother. OrviHe and"Katharine arranged the pallbearers, the coaches, and the guests of the privatefuneral, of Wilbur. The two Mr. tigers of'(Detroit, andMessrs. Collier of "Hew "Yorf^ and(Edwards, were specialfriends. "The arrangement they made at the cost ofmuch labor. I chose Mr. "Wilson and the wholefamily, to the utmost, harmonized in it. 9fe is afavorite preacher, whom I hear a halfdozen times each year, but was not very intimate with him. "The services werejust such as I planned, and I did not care, ifany disapproved of them. I thinkjthey were such, as Mr. "Wilson practices. The importance thatthey should be right was heightened by thefact that thefuneralwas by the city and the whole world. It was to my mind ideal. I chose Mr. "Wilson's assistants, both, and thefamily entirely approved. 14 (Brethren churches in the city. I did not see him thefuneralday, stiff at church. Hence, he was not informedfuffy of the fast order. Jiff went weff. I did not offatefy hear'Mr. Wilson's sermons, because his utterance was indistinct. (But his uterance [sic] being defiBerate on this occasion, I heard it aff. Hie children arranged to have (in aff theavaifabfe coaches) aff the relatives, affour church members who made themsefves finown, andmany invitedguests incfuding my attorneys and the attorneys of the Wright brothers. Ourofd"and"nearest neighbors were in the number. They were fiabfe to omit some by mistake, but I have not heard ofany. I have nothing to suggest as to what you should say. You wiff remember that many of your readers hear not ofthefunerafandburiafin any other way. J?s to Wifbur's church relation, that is unimportant. He joined in 1881.His society died about 1894 or 1899 or later. The society of(Dayton met with my cooperation, but not my membership. I hefpedsupport it. Orvifk andXatharine were, as if they had been sicf^ They went to afuneralsince at Washington City. They are at home now. They fookjtsif they had been sic^ Your brother, Mifam Wright The following postscript is no longer attached to any of the letters. It is thus undated. In it we learn that Wilbur was "ousted" from the United Brethren church, and that the brothers were apparently tee-totalers. (p.S. Neither Wifbur, not any one ofthefamify, wishedthefunerala (Radical'"United (Brethrenfuneraf. He said nothing about it. He fovedthe Church andfought effectivefyfor it fong after he was oustedfrom it byjeafousy. In thefirst weekjofhis sickness, he made his wiff, thereby showing that he apprehended death. You saw the muftitude at his pubfiefuneralandin the packedstreets about the church. You saw the packedsidewaffts a haff-mife on the way to the privatefuneraf, of over twenty coaches, of relatives, our church members, and invitedfriends, incfuding the Afgersfrom (Detroit and Cofier andEdwards ofNew Yorf^ You perhaps ({new that cabfegrams and telegrams and fetters poured upon us by the thousands, in sympathy, from affAmerica andLondon, (Paris, and<3erfin. We had cables ofsympathyfrom the great societies ofEurope, anddistinguishedpersons, 15 including LordNorthclijf, the great writer andpublisher of'England, and"Mphonzo king ofSpain. Hie press ofourgreat cities and ofLondon and(Paris praisedhis achievements andspoke of his purity and modesty. In a word it was afuneral by the nations and the whole world. He could not have expectedsuch notice, nor we, though it did not assuage our grief. "fire we not tending upward too? Asfast as time can move? Nor should we wish the hours more slow To keep usfrom our love. It is afalse story, that I requested them to close their shops on Sunday, and not exhibit their machines on Sunday, and not to take the "socialglass." It was unnecessary! They were unmoved by adverse surroundings. Wilbur was giftedin speech or in writing But believed in talking when necessary. Never dida son excel him in skiHandattention to his Mother and.... [end of page]. This postscript likewise is no longer attached to any of the letters. It is thus undated. It reveals that, on Milton Wright's part at least, the bitterness of the schism was not yet healed, even 23 years afterwards. The two largest Vnited(Brethren churches were kindly offered us. (But to have gone to either, whom Wilbur hadfoughtforthe property, would—afterShanf^had prepared the Court against us, first on the Circuit bench and next on the Supreme bench—have been a surrender—an acquiescence in our being orbedon the churches. I nicely thanked them. 16 Milton Wright at York: Press Reports from the Schism of 1889 The following is excerptedfrom stones printed in The York(PA) Gazette in the Tuesday morning. May 14, 1889, edition. Contemporary readers will be surprised at the degree to which the United Brethren General Conference was covered by the local newspaper. Reporters were assigned to both the Old Constitution and the New Constitution conferences, and watched them gavel-to-gavel, providing nearly complete transcripts of the sessions. These reports were then printed on the front page of the paperfor the duration of the conferences! The stories are helpful as well in providing a third-party, external account of the schism, and particularlythe behavior that week of its respective leaders. These particular sections were chosen because of what they revealed of Milton Wright's words and actions in the moment of crisis. OLD LINE UNITED BRETHREN DELEGATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF 1841 LEAVE THE MAIN BODY And Open the Conference in the Park Opera house Under the Lead of BishopWright THE BISHOP'S ELOQUENT ADDRESS When the constitutional amendments were passed on Saturday, the minority who opposed their passage declared them illegal, and therefore null and void; and as such they could not submit to be under their control. The amendments made a change in the Confession of Faith, in the Constitution, and also wiped out that restriction which saysthat no one can belong to the church and be a member of a secret society. 17 The minority under the leadership of Bishop M. Wright, have declared themselves as the original and legal Conference of the United Brethren Church. They convened sixteen in number, at the Park Opera House yesterday, at 2 o'clock and formulated plans for the work of the church. With them were many ministers who came up from the other meeting, and some ladies, doubdess impelled by curiosity. Bishop Wright was chairman and called the meeting to order by singing "Jesus, Lover of My Soul." Bishop Wright then read a passage of Scripture—1st chapter of the 1st Episde of Timothy. After further singing, Bishop Wright lead [sic] in prayer, in substance as follows: It is in thy holy presence, Oh Lord! that we bow on this solemn occasion. UntoThee would we look, and in Thee is our help, for we are dependent upon Thee, not only for life's blessings, but for all spiritual mercies and benefits. We thank Thee, our Father, for the church of the Living God, which is declared in thy word to be the pillar and the ground of the truth. And we thank Thee for the privilege of worshipping toward Thy Holy Throne. And now here on this occasion we come in Thy name. Lord, may Thy Divine presence be in our midst. May we realize that God is with us to-day, and grant to let the sunshine of Thy countenance rest upon us. We are weak, but thou art mighty. We are limited in our knowledge and ignorant, but Thou knowest all things. Our arm is weak, but Thou hast the arm of omnipotence. And if there be anything wrong in our action toward Thee, or toward our fellow-beings, wilt Thou grant to take these things that are wrong away. Open our hearts before Thee and make them pure in Thy sight Grant Thy blessing upon us in this general conference. And may we report ourselves in harmony with Heaven; and grant to cause Thy face to shine upon us in all our exercises. Maywe adhere to the truth; may we delight in the word of God. In all things enable us to be wholly confirmed to the will of God. 18 Devotional exercises were then resumed, and continued for ten or fifteen minutes, when Bishop Wright spoke as follows: We have met here this afternoon under solemn and somewhat strained circumstances. I am not unmindful of your tears, brethren, and of your experiences of the deep trials under which you are placed by the transactions of the General Conference a few days ago. I may say that perhaps there has not been in the history of all the denominations in Christendom, in the history of the beloved Christian church a parallel equal to this, which at this time is confronting us. We as a denomination took ground on moral questions, on which those that take the one ground as a general thing are to be found in all the other particulars the same. That has been the rulein this matter. And after living under it and up to the guarantees of the constitution, all at once there is thrust upon us an unusual plan, and, as we deem it, and [sic] illegal plan, to change our church constitution. Very soon after it was presented, it was rushed through, discussions on its legality being almost entirely excluded. And then it goes down to the people, under a commission employed by the power of thepress of the church, which is turned to the subversion of the principle upon which we have stood. The editorial medium, the voice of the officials speaking through the press, and all the influence possible, has been brought to bear to repress the real expression as to the legality of the measures which it employed. And not only that, but to any real discussion, to any real effort to enlighten the people upon the subject, it has, as far as possible, repressed. I do not propose to discuss the question, nor to dwell upon it. The question is whether it is in harmony with constitutional law. If it is, it is our duty to submit to it. If it is not, then it is null and void, and as we esteem it, the formation of a new church of which we do not consider ourselves a part. We take the latter view of it. And remembering that—we have people at home who are looking to us, and who entertain like sentiments with us on this question, who 19 have sent in many thousands of petitions to this body, it is our whole purpose to defeat it. Andnow where we are we stand, and look to God for His guidance and for His help. We come not in the spirit of malice. That spirit pervades not the hearts of our brethren. But we come with tears; we come with sorrow. We come as if a part of our household had gone from us, and left us, even in the minority. And we do not come to speak bitter words, nor with the spirit of malice. It is enough to say that we feel bound by God to do what we do. We are assembled here for the purpose of continuing the real Annual [sic] General Conference, as itis in the sight of the constitution and in the sight of God [italics in original]. I trust that during the session we feel much spirit of meekness, shall of humility, and of prudence, and that wisdom which is from above, which is first pure, then gende, full of mercies and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. In conclusion Bishop Wright said: "I was not prepared to address you. Other matters engaged my attention. I did not even outline an address preparatory to the occasion. The first thing in order as there is no other Secretary present, will be the election of a Secretary pro tern." Rev. Barnaby—"I move that in the absence of the secretary-elect that C.L. Wood, of North Michigan, be elected secretary pro tern." Rev. Wood was elected unanimously. Sec. Wood then called the roll which was as follows: Bishop Wright, Revs. Alwood, Barnaby, Bennet, Bowles,Bender, Clay, Greeslin, Floyd, Kabrick, Kiracofe, McNew, Thorp, Titus, Wood, Livingstone, Kenoye [Kenoyer], Spoonmoor, Mahone, Wm. Miller. Rev. Kiracofe offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Inasmuch as one hundred and ten delegates and members of this General Conference already on May 11 , '89, voted to adopt a new constitution and Confession of Faith and that on the 13th day of May through the presiding Bishops, declared the same in force, thereby framing a new church. 20 We, therefore, declare that they have truly vacated theirseats as members of the General Conference of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ of 1889, and that the alternates present, forming the respective Conference are entided to seats in this body upon presentation of proper evidences that they are the duly selected alternates. [Signed] C. H. Kiracofe EXPLANATORY [also from the May 14 edition] The United Brethren General Conference under theConstitution of 1841 was divided May the 13th. At its morning session Bishop N. Castle announced that they were under the constitution of 1889, and sixteen delegates at once ceased to act with that body declaring itself under the old constitution of 1841 continued its session at the Park Opera building. Bishop M. Wright, of Dayton, Ohio, took the chair and conducted the devotion and made some well timed remarks, and the business proceedings. This is the culmination of a long controversy which was commenced in its present form four years ago at the general conference at Fostoria, Ohio, and the great dispute is which is the new and which is the old church. The body which meets at the York Opera House under the Commission Constitution have the new constitution, new confession of faith and new terms of membership, while that body meeting at the Park Opera House is under the constitution adopted in 1841 and the confession of faith largely prepared by Wm. Otterbein. There will be services each evening at the Park Opera House and forenoon and afternoon sessions during the week to which all are invited. 21 The Influence of German Pietism on the United Brethren: Revivalism, Reform, and Sanctification Michael Allen Mudge Michael Allen Mudge is Superintendent of Church Groivth and Renewal of the MidAtlantic Conference of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ and a church planter in Cumberland, Maryland. The Influence of German Pietism "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serptents and as harmless as doves." So said Henry Melchior Muhlenberg (1711-1887) to the six young German Reformed missionaries just arrived in New York harbor on 28 July 1752.1 The significance of this meeting is that these six missionaries were being sent into the distinctive religious environment of colonial America at the height of the First Great Awakening with the blessing of Muhlenberg, patriarch of the German pietists in America. He hadbeen educated at Halle, the school established by August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) to give expression to the theology of his mentor, Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705), the originator of German pietism.2 Among these six missionaries was Philip Wilhelm Otterbein (1726- 1813), who, along with the Mennonite preacher Martin Boehm (1725-1812), would become a leader of the revival among the Germans in America and a founder of the United Brethren in Christ. As elements of Puritanism, Pietism, and Wesleyanism mixed during the course of the First Great Awakening, this denomination would become involved in the mainstream of American religious life. The relationship, however, of the United Brethren in Christ to American revivalism, social reform, and the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification would continue to be made distinctive by their deep roots in German pietism. The particular brand of pietism that Wilhelm Otterbein would bring to America was taught most clearly at Herborn Academy, where he and his 22 brothers were educated, threemiles south of his birthplace of Dillenberg in Nassau. Thismoderately Calvinistic school had long been a center of pietism.3 The anti-scholastic tradition was strong at Herborn and emphasized comprehension of the Heidelburg Catechism rather than rote memorization of it. The Otterbein brothers would learnto oppose what they perceived as the cold barrenness of the Aufklamng (Enlightenment).4 Under the influence of this Reformed pietism, "The priesthood of believers was no longer defined primarily in terms of baptism and personal faith but in terms of the new birth;" thus, the theological focus shifted from a system of doctrines to be debated or defended to a faith experientially known and proclaimed.5 These pietists in Germany were learning what John Wesley (1703- 1791) had learned in England from the Moravians—that, more than intellectual assent to correct doctrine, Christianity is a "warm 'heart' faith and a personal relationship with God through a firsthand experience of Christ."6 The goal of such faith is an evangelical mysticism, "the life of God in the soul of man," which gives him an assurance of sonship and "a pure, loving heart filled with the Holy Spirit," which may be experienced through "purification, inward illumination, and union with God."7 This idea of unity with God affects the understanding of the Church: with a hopeful, postmillennial eschatology, Reformed pietists looked for the glorious age of the Church to soon appear, "and thus the goal of the pilgrim must be the perfection of the kingdom within him in order to hasten its realization within history."8 By not dividing the spiritual and secular realms, as dictated by Luther's doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, these pietists "conceived of life in more wholistic terms;" in this, they joined with Anabaptist thought, which holds "that those who have the 'kingdom within' are known by visible marks," implying a "clearly defined separation of the two worlds."9 The fourth of the seven Articles of Schleitheim (1527), the first Anabaptist confession, states that these two worlds consist of those who live in sin and belong to Satan and those who by Christ have been delivered from evil living. Christ's disciples, then, must avoid sin and cannothave spiritual fellowship with those who reject Him.10 However much Wilhelm Otterbein may have been affected by his American experience, there is evidence to show that Anabaptist and Reformed pietism carry enough emphasis on social reform and holiness to explain the character of the movement he would later lead. Two Wilhelm's brothers, Georg Gottfried and Johann Daniel, were prolific writers who gave expression to the pietistic "theological tradition in which the American Otterbein was nurtured," and he considered their writings of such importance that he distributed them among his parishioners." A bishop of 23 the church would observe in 1901 that "we will follow our German ancestry in our theology. Our church has always been German at heart."1" This tradition of German pietism was characterized by "revivalism, warmth and feeling, stress on sanctification and holiness of life, fervent biblical faith, activist social and political ethic, practical ecumenism, and hopeful eschatology."13 The early stages of the First Great Awakening (1730-1760) had little effect among the Germans of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania because none of its leaders were prominent Germans.14 The state of the German Reformed Church during the period was deplorable: most congregations were without pastors and chaos and corruption reigned. To the highly disorganized and demoralized congregation at Lancaster—second in importance after Philadelphia and Otterbein's first assignment—he worked diligently to bring order and discipline. After preaching "an earnest sermon on repentance and faith" at this church in 1754, Otterbein himself was convicted and wresded in prayer "until he obtained the peace and joy of a conscious salvation." Augustus Waldo Drury, an early biographer of Otterbein, notes that despite the pietism and emphasis on personal faith that he received from Herborn, and despite his personal piety, earnestness, and success in the ministry, his Christianityto this point had been predominantly outward and this event may be properly termed Otterbein's conversion.1 Hereafter, his preaching was characterized by the "pietism of a 'here and now' assurance of salvation and its insistence on personal piety," which would meet great opposition in the Reformed churches.16 He would go on to pastor Reformed congregations at Tulpehocken, Pennsylvania; Frederick, Maryland; and York, Pennsylvania, before settling in his thirty-nine-year ministry at the somewhat independent "Evangelical" German Reformed Church at Baltimore, which would later affiliate with the United Brethren.1' While Otterbein was increasing as an evangelical leader among the German Reformed, Martin Boehm was also developing as a futureleader of the German revival. Reared in the Mennonite community of his native Pennsylvania, a spiritual crisis was occasioned in 1757by his being chosen by lot as pastor. On discovering that his outward holiness gave him nothing to preach, he sought the Lord in prayer as he plowed his field, kneeling at the end of each furrow and crying out, "Lost, lost {verlohmif until he heard God say, "I am come to seek and to save that which is lost." With the assurance and joy that came from this conversion experience, Boehm, too, began preaching with such confidence and enthusiasm that the Mennonites generally found it difficult to bear.18 Even though the Great Awakening among English speakers, which was dying out by the late 1750s, had practically no effect upon the revival of 24 the German-Americans which was at that time just commencing, there is at least one recorded connection between the two movements. Converts of George Whitefield (1714-1770) had preached present salvationto the Mennonites of the upper Shenandoah Valley, causing such extensive disruption that in 1761 Martin Boehm, by then recognized as a leader of the revival among the Anabaptists, was called upon for advice. There, he interviewed a Mennonite girl who, under the influence of Whitefield's "New Light" preachers, had become deeply impressed with her stage of lostness. In his situation—so similar to his own just four years earlier—Boehm counseled simplywith the girl who, during their prayer, was converted. Her sorrow dissolved in joy. The girl's parents and many more German families were converted thatday, and Boehm left Virginia convinced that no peace, hope, or faith may truly come without deeply-felt repentance. It was this experience that led Boehm into itinerant evangelism.19 During the early 1760s, Otterbein became more and more an itinerant evangelist to the German Reformed and Lutherans, while Boehm increased his influence over the Mennonites, Amish, Dunkers, Moravians, and Schwenkfelders. The principle means of uniting such diverse groups was something distinctively American—the "great meeting" (gros^e versammlun^. These were generally announced by word of mouth and usually lasted at least three days, with everyone staying in neighboring barns, homes, or "temporary shelters." Their emotional character caused considerable excitement and, not infrequently, confrontations with antagonists. It was at such a great meeting, called by Boehm at Isaac Long's barn near Lancaster on Pentecost Sunday, probably 1767, that Otterbein and Boehm apparently met forthe first time. Given the historical animosity between the Reformed and Anabaptist groups, it is a testimony to the ecumenical spirit of this German revival that Otterbein was there at all, yet when Boehm concluded preaching and sharing the story of his own conversion, Otterbein was so moved that he rose from his seat and embraced Boehm, shouting lWir sind Bruderr ("We are brethren!"). Boehm's son, Henry, recorded that at this remarkable sight, "shout after shout went up, and tears flowed freely from many eyes, the scene was so Pentecostal. Such was the origin of the United Brethren."20 After this meeting, Otterbein and Boehm sought to work together "to get all professing German Christians to claim the fullness of God's life," and the heretofore separate revivals among the Reformed and Anabaptists became increasingly interwoven. Beginning in 1774, Otterbein chaired a committee of Reformed ministers dedicated to promoting "growing interest in evangelical activities and practices," and more Mennonites began joining the movement "on account," as Christian Newcomer (1749-1830) testified, 25 "of the want of the life and power of religion among them."21 From 1767 to 1789—even when the War for American Independence interrupted the German revival—the preachers in sympathy with the "United Brethren" movement met informally as often as once a year, usually at a great meeting. By 1789, the movement had grown so that the first of several formal conferences was held at Otterbein's church in Baltimore.22 Their purpose was never separatistic: it was only to promote and give direction to the revival work among the Germans. In their attempt, however, to bring spiritual renewal to their denominations, their movement had taken on so many characteristics of American revivalism—evangelical preaching, enthusiasm, exhortation to personal piety, protracted camp meetings, and ecumenical cooperation—that the denominations they sought to renew grew more and more intolerant of their "strange" activity; by 1780, Boehm and his followers were expelled by the Mennonites, and Otterbein found the German Reformed Church increasingly closed to him. It was to preserve their spiritual movement that the formal conference held at Frederick, Maryland, on 25 September 1800 gave official organization to the "United Brethren in Christ" and elected Otterbein and Boehm as its first bishops.23 The very first American-born denomination had thus been brought forth from German revivalism. They had not set out to organize a new denomination; this was just a matter of convenience—and these early leaders saw it as such—to maintain their evangelical movement: to German pietists, it is the spiritual Church that is all-important.24 The Otterbeins' interest in seeking visible marks of regeneration in men, while also maintaining that the true church is the universal, spiritual company of those in whom Christ dwells, are ideals which came into conflict in Philip Wilhelm Otterbein's ecumenism. He was led to participate in the "unsectarian" meetings of the United Brethren in the hope that, the more Pietism grew, the more the church would become one. However, the attempt to give visible expression to this spiritual fellowship resulted in a new ecclesiastical institution.23 Their pietistic view of the Church made them extremely hesitant to take on a "worldly" structure and much of a detailed form of discipline (it was this issue that prevented an early merger with the highly-organized Methodists), and this attitude is expressed in the tide they chose for this new ecclesiastical institution: it was designated as Von Die Vereinigte Cruder %u Cbristo (The 26 United Brethren in Christ), with the word Gesellschaft (society) used to describe the organization; the word Gemeinde (church) did not appear in the title of the denomination until 1813—the year of Otterbein's death—and even then its use was unofficial andby one of the conferences.26 Pietism and Reform However much these events are rooted in German Pietism, they show the extent to which the United Brethren in Christ had become involved in American revivalism. The historian and theologian Philip Schaff (1819- 1893) was not incorrect in citing toa Berlin conference in 1854 the United Brethren in Christ and the Evangelical Association as examples of German churcheswhich, under theinfluence of Methodism, "had adopted the system of revivals and the emphasis upon 'subjective, experimental religion.'"27 Indeed, the founding conference of 1800 had also scheduled ten great meetings for the following year, and by 1840 there were campmeetings held across the church, all employing the "new measures" introduced by Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875)—specially organized "protracted meetings," the "mourner's bench" or "anxious seat," and the calling on women to pray and speak.28 Another aspect of the involvement of the United Brethren with American evangelicalism, also for them firmly rooted in German pietism, is the social reform movement. Jonathan Blanchard was considered a radical by his contemporaries and ahead of his times by historians when, in his 1839 commencement address to Oberlin College, he asserted that "every true minister of Christ is a universal reformer, whose business it is, so far as possible, to reform all the evils which press upon human concerns."29 This idea was not foreign to the German evangelicals: Pietism declared that the true evangelical faith is present only when it is manifested in Christian conduct. It upheld the Lutheran Confessions in their entirety, but claimed that, while Luther and his colleagues had completed the reformation of doctrine, a second reformation relating right doctrine to right living was still needed.30 It was exactly this understanding of the relationship between faith and action that prompted the United Brethren Church to become the first denomination to create a policy prohibiting the manufacture of alcohol by its members. Having taken its first action against this evil in 1814, the General Conference of 1821 took decisive action against intemperance and instructed 27 all preachers "to labor against the evil." This was five years before the formation of the American Temperance Society. By 1841, this prohibitive measure was written into the Constitution and the entire denomination became, in effect, a total abstinence society.31 Another reform issue that captured early attention concerns secret societies. When one of the annual conferences learned in 1826 that three of its members had connected themselves with freemasonry, a strong resolution of disapproval was passed; two of the guilty preachers acquiesced andone withdrew. The next General Conference (1829) resolved that freemasonry in any sense of the word shall "in no way...be approved or tolerated in our church," and any member who participates with or joins the Masons "by such an act excludes himself from membership in our church."32 Opposed to the freemasons' secrecy, ritualism and promise of salvation apart from Christ, this legislation resulted from "the conviction that the purity, spirituality, and power of the Church depended on a wide belt between the Church and the world," an attitude with direct correlation to the Anabaptist Articles of Schleitheim that "disciples of Christ...cannot have spiritual fellowship with those who reject the obedience of faith.3j The most critical issue of the early reform movement was slaver)'. Donald Dayton, in Discovering an Evangelical Heritage, credits anti-slavery organizations to the agitation that began in the 1830 revival and led in 1833 to the founding of the American Anti-Slavery Society. In 1845, the issue was heightened for American churches by the "Cincinnati Debates" between N.L. Rice (a moderate abolitionist who argued in favor of gradual emancipation, compensation, and colonization) and Jonathan Blanchard, who argued that slaver)- was a sin to be immediately abolished and suggested that church discipline be brought to bear upon those who held slaves or supported the institution of slavery. He did not view the question of slavery as an individual matter of personal purity, but insisted that "slave-holding is not a solitary, but a social sin," deserving attack on all fronts.34 Again, the United Brethren Church proved to be ahead of the times. By the 1820s, Methodism had accommodated to the prevailing acceptance of this "peculiar institution," desiring growth into a national church more than the maintenance of discipline on the slavery issue; however, the United Brethren General Conference of 1821 took just the radical abolitionist action that Blanchard would advocate a quarter-century later: legislation was enacted 28 totally prohibiting slavery, requiring any United Brethren who held slaves to free them (giving annual conferences authority to determine terms of compensation, if necessary), absolutely forbidding members from selling slaves, and excluding all slave-owners from church membership.35 Aversion to slaveiy was generally a part of German character, especially since the institution was contrary to the German economic system of small, self- sufficient farms. The United Brethren took this new legislation so seriously that Bishop John Jacob Glossbrenner (1812-1884) even enforced it against his own father-in-law, Christian Shuey, expelling him from the very church for which he had donated land!36 This radical stand against slavery was not maintained without controversy in the church. In 1834—the same year that the student rebellion at Lane Theological Seminary over this issue led to the founding of Oberlin Institute, which would become the center of the radical reform movement— the denomination began its first newspaper, The Religions Telescope, whose first editor, William Rhinehart, used its columns to promote the radical stands on temperance and abolition. Controversy between the moderate abolitionists and the extreme radicals resulted in Rhinehart's resignation in 1839, but the new editor, William Hanby, maintained the same editorial policies. The United Brethren Church had been well established in the slave states of Maryland and Virginia long before the 1821 action, but because that legislation was consistently and rigidly enforced, its growth there and in other border states (the church was trying to establish itself in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri) "was either greatly retarded or wholly prevented)' Interestingly, it was the Scioto and Sandusky Conferences—both in the North—whose agitation succeeded in getting the 1841 General Conference to order The Religious Telescope "closed to the discussion of the slavery issue.'»37 Pietism and Sanctification Clearly, its concepts of the Church and of personal piety, both influenced heavily by German pietism, had already thrust the United Brethren Church into the mainstream of American revivalism and social reform; still, it was yet to come under the direct influence of the American holiness movement. The pietism that influenced United Brethren evangelism and reform activity was steeped in a general emphasis on holiness of heart and life, yet it did not insist upon any specific theology of the "how and when" concerning sanctification. Despite the adherence to the Wesleyan view by many of the early church leaders, it was not until the early 1840s that the whole denomination began to feel the full impact of the particular 29 Wesleyan teaching of the doctrine of entire sanctification as a definite second work of grace. "'Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.' Do it, Lord Jesus: for the sake of thy suffering and death. Amen." With these words begin the Minutes of the 1800 conference that founded the United Brethren in Christ.38 Sanctification, obviously, was an important theme for the early church organizers. Otterbein "spoke of the essence of 'true Christianity' as being...'the way of sanctification,"' yet he carefully related the "way of holiness" to the possession of Christ in a way that is consistent with Calvin and the Heidelburg Catechism.39 Still, his theology of holiness is very close to Wesleyanism, as evidenced in his only printed sermon: Whoever fights under the discipline of the Holy Spirit is led to victorv7 finally by grace. And this is the work of redemption, Christ in us. The marks by which it can be recognized are a loss of the desire or tendency to sin, a ceasing of sin itself. The fruits of it are holiness, a new human being, and a process of life which goes on steadfastly toward perfection.40 The writings of Johann Daniel Otterbein and Georg Gottfried Otterbein—the brothers who never left Germany—reveal that they, too, held a viewof entire sanctification remarkably similar to John Wesley's.41 As a matter of fact, when during his only visit home to Germany in 1770, Wilhelm was able to share his experiences with his mother and brothers, Georg exclaimed, "We are now...not only brothers after the flesh, but also after the spirit. I have also experienced the same blessing. I can testify that God has power on earth to forgive sins and to cleanse from all unrighteousness."42 In an undated letter, Wilhelm explained: The word of God speaks, however, plainly enough making a difference between justification and sanctification. And this difference accords also with reason; for, is it not one thing when Pharoah takes Joseph from prison, and another when he enrobes him in kingly apparel and sets him a prince over the whole land of Egypt?43 This view of entire sanctification and Christian perfection is most assuredly one of the reasons Otterbein and Methodist Episcopal Bishop Francis Asbury (1745-1816) so highly esteemed each other as kindred spirits. Martin Boehm also followed the Wesleyan view, as evidenced by his 30 statement that this favorite English works were John Wesley's sermons and John Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism and by his joining a Methodist class meeting late in life. His son, Henry Boehm, observed about the United Brethren that "their doctrines are the same as the Methodists, but they differ in practice."44 The testimony of Christian Newcomer's journal shows that this "Saint Paul" of the church held to a Wesleyan sense of entire sanctification as well, so that the first three bishops of the church were in agreement on this doctrine with the Methodists.41 Individual opinions aside, a consideration of the Confession of Faith shows, however, that the views of these early leaders were not ableto gain acceptance as a distinct theme or official position of the church. The first Confession, written in 1813 under the direct influence of Otterbein, included in the article on the Holy Ghost the statement "that we through him must be sanctified and receive faith, thereby being cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit." Two years later, after his death, it was revised to say, "That we are through him enlightened; through faith justified and sanctified," and by 1819 it read simply, "That he comforts the believers, and guides them into all truth."46 Thus, within five years of the passing of Otterbein and Boehm, all mention of sanctification was deleted from the Confession. A probable explanation is that "the ministers of the United Brethren who came from the Mennonite tradition were generally less enthusiastic in accepting and preaching Christian perfection," and an ever-increasing percentage of members and pastors were coming into the church from that tradition.4' They emphasized holiness but shunned a particular doctrine of it: Although many of the early ministers and members of the U.B. Church possessed much of the spirit of entire consecration to God, and brought forth fruit unto holiness, yet the doctrine of sanctification was not generally admitted among them as a distinct theme.48 Eighteen forty-five is the year the church got a most capable proponent of entiresanctification as a distinct theme. Deeply impressed by the testimony of Jesse Wilson, a Scioto Conference preacher who professed entire sanctification shortly before dying, Rev. David Edwards (1816-1876) sought God and struggled until 2 January 1845, when he, too, experienced "the second blessing." Greatly influenced in his thinking by Wesley's sermons and Thomas Upham's Principles of the Interior or Hidden LJfey Edwards was this same year electededitor of The Religious Telescope, which immediately became the principle organ for the spread of Edwards' views and in which, it was said, everything "was made to bend to this one all-absorbing theme."49 31 For the first time, the entire church was exposed to the doctrine as a theme: It is doubtful if the particular doctrine of entire sanctification has ever been stated more clearly, more profoundly, and in a way less liable to objection, than as stated by him. One of the proofs is that he carried with him, in this movement, so many of the greatest minds in the Church, and that, of those who were not convinced, so few ventured to oppose him.30 In just the conference where this revival began, there were within two years thirty pastors professing entire sanctification, and some of the prominent church leaders who aided Edwards' efforts included Henry Spayth, who wrote the first denominational history in 1851; John Lawrence, the second historian and editor; William Hanby, bishop; Jacob Erb, bishop; William Shuey, publishing agent; and Lewis Davis, the church's father of higher education.31 Under such leadership the holiness revival swept across the church for fifteen years. This holiness revival not only quickened the spiritual vitality of the church, it also brought forth much visible fruit. Membership nearly tripled during the course of the revival, from nearly 36,000 in 1845 to over 94,500 in I860.32 Another positive result is that the United Brethren Church received from theholiness revival a more clearly-articulated and clearly-promoted theological basis for its already well-established involvement in social reform movements. Echoing Charles Finney's contention that "an impulse to reform activity" is implicit in the "demand that true conversion evidence itself in good works and commitment to the welfare of others," Bishop Lewis Davis (1814-1890) noted that under the direction of David Edwards, The Religions Telescope "taught the Church that the position it had taken against the evils of the times could not be maintained without the aid of the Holy Spirit," and Edwards observed in an 1847 article reporting the spread of entire sanctification that "where the church and the people have had it presented and defended, the fruit of reform has spread."53 This fusion of the holiness and reform movements was further indicated when the 1853 General Conference commissioned a new monthly magazine, Unity with God, forthe special purpose of promoting "first, and above all, the entire regeneration and sanctification of heart and life, exemplified in all the holy and living forms of an experimental and practical Christianity. This we regard as the fixed and unalterable basis of all moral reforms which are founded on truth."54 Even a book that rolled off the denominational printing press in 1854 to promote the Wesleyan doctrine 32 notes the connection between doctrine and duty: "slavery, intemperance, licentiousness, worldly-mindedness, war, and a thousand other evils would soon be done away, if the church of Christ, as a body, was wholly sanctified."35 Under such spiritual unction, the church entered into a period of bold and vigorous reform activity during the revival years. Acting on the conviction that "Christians should avoid all filthiness," the brethren were instructedto "discountenance the use of tobacco," and the 1821 stand against alcohol was so strengthened that by 1849 total abstinence was required as a test for membership.56 To maintain the purity of the church, the General Conferences countered complaints that the church was cut off from the wealth of the cities because its anti-secrecy position was unpopular by clarifying and strengthening its historic stand.07 In addition to such moral reform activity, the United Brethren made bold advancements concerning civil rights. The missionary society organized in 1853 would eventually send a United Brethren African-American couple from Dayton, Ohio, to take leadership of the Africa mission, and when the first college—Otterbein College in Westerville, Ohio—was opened in 1847, it had one woman on its faculty and welcomed both female and black students.58 Women had had the right to vote for delegates to General Conference since 1815, and the first women licensed by the church to preach were Charity Opheral in 1847 and Lydia Sexton in 1851.59 The most vexing social problem during these revival years was, of course, slaver}'. At David Edwards' instigation, the 1845 General Conference repeated the 1841 "gag rule," and The Religious Telescope once again became a radical abolitionist paper—and as such it was banned and burned in the South.60 As the slavery issue convulsed the nation, it also posed problems for the church, particularly in the Virginia Conference (covering western Maryland and the Shenandoah Valley), which was entirely south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Questions from Maryland and Virginia delegates embarrassed by the church's stand prompted the 1857 General Conference to instruct the bishops to ensure that the rule against slaver}' was strictly enforced in this conference.61 Despite such rumblings, the abolitionist position was rigidly upheld; and, after a trip to Missouri, Bishop Edwards justified the uncompromising boldness of the denomination by asserting that "if the churches of the South will not reform—of which I see no hope—and take the Bible ground on this great sin, then the churches of the North that have the truth ought to go South and spread it abroad."62 Because it considered the Mexican War an immoral means to expand slavery, the 1849 General Conference adopted a position against national warfare that put the denomination more in the 33 Anabaptist camp of "peace" churches; however, this position was reversed in 1865, when war as a last resort in settling such a vexing social evil as slaver)' was deemed justifiable.63 No moment in the history of the United Brethren in Christ could better typify the spirit and fruit of this unprecedented period of holiness revival and active social reform than that of the 1861 General Conference. It met at Otterbein University, where there had never been any discrimination with regard to race or sex and where such notable reformers as Frederick Douglass, Wendell Phillips, Francis E. Willard, and Susan B. Anthony had appeared as honored guest speakers. Nearby was the home of the school's president, Bishop Lewis Davis, which served as a station for the "underground railroad." Across the street was the home of Bishop William Hanby, whose son, Benjamin Hanby, was inspired by the death of a fugitive slave there to pen the words and music to the stirring song, "Darling Nellie Gray."64 The delegates heard reports on the missions, publishing, and educational work of the church—all children of this revival period. Bishop Davis observed that while the church was marked by an earnest, aggressive reform spirit, yet it never yielded to "the reading of sermons, the use of choirs and musical instruments, or anything else supposed to hinder the simplicity and spirituality of worship."65 While being sobered by the first bloodshed of the war, which "flecked the streets of Baltimore" just a few blocks from Otterbein's grave, this conference met with the satisfaction that it wasone of one mind concerning all the major issues of the age." Expressive of the theological foundation upon which rested the reform activity of the church, historian John Lawrence closed his observations on the state of the church in 1861 with these thoughts: That the Christian church is composed only of those who have beenborn again, and now live by faith in the Son of God, is a universal conviction. Anyone who attempts their love-feast meetings, or listens to their prayers and sermons, or witnesses their labors with seekers of religion at the mourner's bench or anxious seat, will be convinced of this fact. THE LIFE OF GOD IN THE SOUL is still the great thought with the United Brethren in Christ.67 Inevitably and unalterably disrupted by the war, the joint holiness and reform movement couldnever recapture that attention of the church, as it immediately became convulsed by and preoccupied with the fight over the anti-lodge issue that ledto the schism in 1889. The doctrine of entire 34 sanctification provided some small controversy during the post-war period as well. As early as 1854, one proponent of the Wesleyan view conceded that "no biblical doctrine, perhaps, has been the subject of more disputation than the subject of present entire sanctification."68 The Wesleyan faction seemed to grow more prominent, with holiness camp meetings being common through the 1880s. In 1874, the Pennsylvania Conference organized its own holiness association and in 1875 began publishing Highway of Holiness. Other conference holiness associations sprang up, and in 1883 they joined "for the purpose of organizing a general association for the promotion of scriptural holiness in the United Brethren Church."69 By 1880, the divisiveness of the differing views of sanctification was becoming abundantly clear, and the controversy was heightened that year when one United Brethren pastor abandoned his previous adherence to the Wesleyan view and published a book against it."'0 Some argued that sanctification is a concomitant of the New Birth, with only gradual growth afterwards; othersheld that it is a lifelong process completed only just before death; and still others agreed with the Wesleyan view that it comes in a moment of total consecration subsequent to justification, although they disagreed with professing the experience—as being contrary to true humility.71 When pressed about the extent to which he would insist upon the Wesleyan view, even Bishop Edwards conceded, in an editorial entitled "Sanctification—When Obtained?," that to adopt any of the views as an absolute standard, and to deny this grace to all who do not receive it precisely in the same manner as to time, would be assuming a position not warranted by Scripture nor sustained by experience. The Bible nowhere states that it must be received in all cases at the same relativetime.72 In all the flurry of articles, editorials, accusations, defenses, and debates occasioned by the controversy over the distinctly Wesleyan position, Bishop Milton Wright (1828-1917) stated clearly the heartache of the church: A wrangle on almost any other subject would be more appropriate. Let us seek holiness, not wrangle about it. What has appeared in our columns from time to time forthe past year satisfies us that it would be better that many should be candid students on the subject, rather than dogmatic teachers. In the investigation of this grand subject we all need much grace.'3 35 Despite the widespread influence enjoyed by the distinctive Wesleyan teaching on entire sanctification during the fifteen years of holiness revival before the war, its failure to ultimately win an official place as a doctrinal position of the church—and the reason its insistent teaching met with so much resistance—was determined by the denomination's attitude toward creedal statements. The Confession of1815 has its roots in the documents drawn up by Otterbein for the Evangelical German Reformed Church of Baltimore in 1875 as revised by the 1789 conference to better suit the needs of the larger society, and it is based upon the 1813 statement written just before Otterbein's death. As shown before, its revisions through 1819 reveal a tendency for less detail, not more, as this document originally written fora Reformed congregation had to accommodate an increasing diversity of opinion resulting from the larger influence of the Mennonites. The trend, then, in the formulation of United Brethren doctrinal statements was to be silent or intentionally vague, as need be, to keep the Reformed and Anabaptist elements in harmony. The clearest proof of this conjecture is found in the article on "The Christian Ordinances," which insists upon liberty of conscience concerning communion, modes of baptism, and footwashing: "It is not becoming any of our preachersor members to traduce any of their brethren whose judgment and understanding in these respects is different from their own, either in public or in private."74 That a controversy over the doctrine of depravity was settled by the 1857 General Conference adoption of a statement just sufficiently vague to placate both sides demonstrates that this tendency concerning doctrine was still operative.'0 This tendency among the United Brethren to deliberately shun specific doctrinal positions not essential to salvation that may bring the Reformed and Anabaptist elements into disharmony is not an unlikely explanation for the resistance that greeted the Wesleyan interpretation of the doctrine of entire sanctification. Although modifying the historic stand against freemasonry is the immediate cause of the great schism that came during the 1889 General Conference, "the issue of the 'second work' was centrally involved," and because the complete re-writing of both the Constitution of 1841 and the Confession of Faith of1815 afforded the opportunity to establish an official article on sanctification, forthe most part the "Wesleyan faction went with the liberal (New Constitution) group."76 On the other hand, the radical (Old Constitution) group, in response to the sanctification issue, would follow the denomination's historical tendency by eventually adopting this statement: 36 The Church of the United Brethren in Christ has historically and predominantly taught that sanctification is progressive— a life-long growth process which begins with conversion....However, we allow in our teaching the possibility and privilege of a crisis experience of total devotion and perfection of love. We do not deny the crisis experience, nor do we demand it as the norm for ever)7 believer.77 Conclusions Several conclusions may be drawn from this survey of the relationship of German pietism to American revivalism, social reform, and sanctification in the United Brethren Church. First, in its involvement with American revivalism, it is clear that the church readily adopted any and all distinctively American methods that served to promote the revival that was so deeply rooted in a pietistic understanding of theChristian faith. Following the pattern of so many other cases before and after, the United Brethren in Christ began as a loosely-organized spiritual movement which, in the face of rising external opposition and internal need, was forced reluctantly to take on institutional form, with publications and educational institutions soon to follow for the perpetuation of its distinctives. The operation of this phenomenon during the American holiness movement of the nineteenth century has left behind a proliferation of such denominations, associations, magazines, and Christian colleges. Second, its Anabaptist and Reformed pietistic understanding of the relationship between faith and conduct is what put the United Brethren in Christ years ahead of the times in areas of moral and social reform. Last, the church was so characterized by a sensitivity to unnecessary specificity in doctrinal positions as a result of its need to accommodate both Reformed and Anabaptist elements in its background that the particular Wesleyan teaching on entire sanctification was never able to gain the official recognition its proponents desired until the schism of 1889. In summary, no matter how deeply rooted in German pietism its theology- may be, the United Brethren clearly participated fully in both American revivalism and the related social reform movement. If, however, official adoption of the doctrine of entire sanctification as a definite second work of grace in the Wesleyan sense as a doctrinal distinctive and its promotion as a special emphasis are the determining factors, then the United Brethren Church cannot properly be considered to have ever been a "holiness church."78 Looking over its experience, it may easily be said of the 37 United Brethren Church that it "could grow into the English language and yet keep its German heart and its exalted German type and piety."'9 1 Paul R. Fetters, ed. Trials and Triumphs: A History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Huntington, Indiana: United Brethren Department of Church Services, 1984), 17. 2 Paul Kuenning, "Pietism: A Lutheran Resource for Dialogue with Evangelicalism," Dialog, 24: 288-9; Fetters, 21-2. 3 J. Steven O'Malley, Pilgrimage of Faith: The Legacy of the Otterbeins (Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1973), 109; Fetters, 55-6; and Augustus Waldo Drury, The Life of Rev. Philip William Otterbein (Dayton: United Brethren Publishing House, 1884), 22, 35. 4 O'Malley, 98. 5 Ibid., 59; Arthur C. Core, Philip William Otterbein: Pastor, Ecumenist (Dayton: Evangelical United Brethren Board of Publication, 1968), 15. 6 J. Bruce Behney and Paul H. Eller, The History of the Evangelical United Brethren Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1979), 7. 7 G.M. Mathews, ed. A Century of United Brethren History and Achievement (Dayton: United Brethren Publishing House, 1901), 18,22. 8 O'Malley, 127-8,133. 9 Kuenning, 290; O'Malley, 135. 10 Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology' (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 705-6,904. 11 O'Malley, xi, 94. 12 Mathews, 22. 13 Kuenning, 290. 14 Behney, 26; Fetters, 25. 15 Drury, 69-70. 16 Fetters, 9. 17 Drury, 83,98, 102-3, 113, 155, 160, 164-8. 18 John Lawrence, The History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: United Brethren Printing Establishment), Vol I: 156-60. 19 Fetters, 43-4: Lawrence, 161-9. 20 Lawrence, 171-4; Behney and Eller, 16-7; Fetters, 66; Henry Boehm, Reminiscences, Historical and Biographical, of Sixty-Four Years in the Ministry (New York: Carlton & Porter, 1865), 390. 21 Samuel S. Hough, Christian Newcomer: His Life, Journal, and Achievements (Dayton: Church of the United Brethren in Christ, 1941), 4, 123; Fetters, 72. 22 Lawrence, 265-6. 23 Augustus Waldo Drury, History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: Otterbein Press, 1953), 107-7; Lawrence, 288-91. 24 Mathews, 29-30. 25 O'Malley, 135. 26 Fetters, 94, 99-102. 27 Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), 30-1. 38 28 Fetters, 92; John Lawrence,The Histoiy of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: United Brethren Printing Establishment, 1861), Vol. II: 316-7; Donald W. Dayton, Discovering an Evangelical Heritage (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 16. The tradition of summer camp meetings still persists in the Old Constitution branch of the church. Some annual conferences continue to hold their sessions in conjunction with the conference camp meeting. 29 Dayton, 9. 30 Kuenning, 288. 31 Lawrence, II: 140; Daniel Berger, History of the Churchof the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: United Brethren Publishing House, 1897), 249; Fetters, 138. 32 Fetters, 141-3. 33 Lewis Davis, The Life of Rev. David Edwards, Late a Bishop of the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: United Brethren Publishing House, 1883), 289; Elwell, 705. 34 Dayton, 11-14,26,28. 35 Ibid., 74; Fetters, 137. 36 Abram Paul Funkhouser, History of the United Brethren in Christ, Virginia Conference (Dayton, Virginia: Ruebush-Kieffer Company, 1921), 114. 37 Dayton, 36; Fetters, 16-7, 162,209,447; Behney and Eller, 124; Berger, 248. 38 Fetters, 91. 39O'Malley, 102. 40 Ibid. 133; Core, 85. 41 O'Malley, 153-6. 42 Drury, Otterbein, 123. 43 Core, 101. 44 Boehm, 383, 388. 45 Lawrence, 11:335-6; Daryl M. Elliott, "Entire Sanctification and the Church of the United Brethren in Christ: to 1860," [unpublished thesis], 1985, 13-7. 46 Augustus Waldo Drury, Disciplines of the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: United Brethren Publishing House, 1895), 3, 12, 28,48. 47 Elliott, 14; Lawrence, II: 180. 48 Alexander Owen, "Sanctification—A Historical Sketch," The Unity Magazine and Ladies Companion (February, 1857), 57-60. 49 Davis, 60-1; Lawrence, 11:337-45. Thomas Upham was an 1839 convert of Phoebe Palmer's "Tuesday meetings." See Melvin E. Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century (Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1980), 38. 50 Davis, 79. 51 Owen, 59; Elliott, 26. 52 Mathews, 32. d3 Dayton, 17; Davis, 66; David Edwards, "Revivals," The Religious Telescope (17 February 1847), 236. 54 David, 149-50. 55 Chester Briggs, The Canaanite Exterminated; or, a Practical Treatise on Present and Entire Sanctification (Dayton: United Brethren Printing Establishment, 1854), 17. 56 Fetters, 231-3. 57 Z. Warner, The Life and Labors of Rev. Jacob Bachtel (Dayton: United Brethren Publishing House, 1868), 135-6; Fetters, 234. After an address by the president of Oberlin College at its meeting in 1868, U.B. Bishop David Edwards was elected president of the National Anti-Secrecy Convention. See Davis, 237. 39 58 Davis, 148; Fetters, 198, 212, 229. Otterbein College opened with its policy of no discrimination just thirteen years after Oberlin College, which had been the first in the nation to admit women. See Dayton, 41. 59 Drury, History, 424-5; Fetters, 198. 60 Davis, 58; Fetters, 228. The United Brethren Church had gainedsuch a reputation for its radical abolitionist stand that in 1855 the twelve-year-old Wesleyan Methodist Connection, credited as being one of the very few denominations "founded squarely on a social issue" (slavery), "made a stirring plea for union" with the United Brethren Church, which was declined only because of disagreement concerning the itinerant system. See Dayton, 73, and Behney and Eller, 167-8. 61 Berger, 309-10; Fetters, 227. Members of the Virginia Conference had been so offended by some of the editorials in The Religious Telescope that editor David Edwards traveled to Hebron, Maryland, to address the 1847 conference session concerning the controversy. When one member attempted to defend slavery from the Bible, Rev. Edwards charged him with heresy, causing no small excitement within the conference. When Rev. Edwards decided to return to Ohioby public transportation, he discovered that he could find nobody in Maryland who would buy the horse of an abolitionist. This same session of the Virginia Conference resolved: "That this conference, from the fact that The Religious Telescope, our church paper, is calculated to hinder, rather than promote, the church within the bounds of our conference, in consequence of its containing abolition matters from time to time, take into consideration the propriety of publishing within its own borders,a paper for its own benefit." Out of this agitation, The Conference News was established and functioned as a conference paper until 1911. Fears of a North-South schism in the church prompted one United Brethren pastor in 1854 to launch The Virginia Telescope as a voice for Southern views,but it lasted only a year. See Davis, 73-7; Funkhouser, 100-1; and Drury, History, 681. By the outbreak of the war, United Brethren people in the South had come to be held in such distrust by their neighbors that the Parkersburg (later West Virginia) Conference, formed in 1858, petitioned the 1861 General Conference for autonomy from the rest of the Northern church in order to save itself from the peril of persecution. The request was denied, with even the Virginia Conference delegates opposing it, one such delegate expressing the confidence their action to cancel all subscriptions to The Religious Telescope "was all that was necessary to save the church in the Virginia Conference." During the war, the battle line kept the Virginia Conference divided, necessitating its meeting in two sessions each year of the war. The Parkersburg Conference lost one third of its membership, and some pastors were jailed and others fled, but the conservative leadership of Rev. Jacob Bachtel in the Parkersburg Conference and Bishop J. J. Glossbrenner in the Virginia Conference proved sufficient to keep those conferences in the denomination and to preserve the denomination in those territories. See Warner, 138-42; Funkhouser, 94-9. 62 Davis, 163-4. 63 Behney and Eller, 167. The United Brethren commitment to civil rights reform continued after the war was settled: when the 1865 General Conference heard of the capture of Jefferson Davis, the delegates broke into applause, sang the doxology, and 40 passed a resolution calling for the emancipated slaves to be given equal standing before the law and the vote. See Davis, 228-9. 64 Fetters, 229,232. 65 Mathews, 32; Davis, 103, 233-4. 66 Lawrence, II: 423. The first casualties of the war occurred 19 April 1861 when Yankee troops attempting to pass through Baltimore were attacked by the city's citizens just a few blocks from oldOtterbein Church; the quote is from "Maryland, My Maryland," the secessionist ballad that is still the official state song. It is interesting to note here that even though many of the delegates, even during the 1861 General Conference, were busy making preparations to go off to war, the sense of optimistic peace, self-satisfaction, and confidence prevailing in the denomination atthis glorious hour is evidenced by fact that after the senior bishop read Romans 12, the conference opened with the singing of Zion stands by hill surrounded, Zion kept by power divine; All her foes shall be confounded Tho' the world in arms combine. Happy Zion, What a favored lot is thine. See Warner, 132. 67 Lawrence, II: 422-3. After the 1861 General Conference, John Lawrence resigned as editor of The Religious Telescope to become the chaplain of a Negro regiment in the Union Army. See Fetters, 229-30. 68Briggs, 13. 69 Fetters, 190. Bishop Edwards continued to lead the spread of the doctrine of entire sanctification until his death in 1876. He moved to Baltimore in 1873, andone pastor who heard him preach at the Orrstown, Pennsylvania, camp meeting that August compared his effect with those of Whitefield and Finney, yet Edwards met such fanaticism over the doctrine during a tour of the West the following year that he himself was accused of being unsanctified! See Davis, 286-7, 291-3. 70 Fetters, 191. 71 Davis, 96. 72 Ibid, 96. 73 Fetters, 190. 74 C. Ray Miller and Paul R. Fetters, "Our Distinctives" (Huntington, Indiana: United Brethren Department of Church Services, 1982), 40. 75 Fetters, 185-7. 76 Ibid., 192. 77 Miller, 20. 78 Dieter, 3. 79 Mathews, 53. 41 Martin Boehm, Pietist and Methodist Nathan Bangs The following account challenges some historic notions about the relationship between Martin Boehm and the United Brethren denomination, particularly in his latteryears. If true, perhaps Boehm had, to some degree, separated himselffrom the United Brethren because of their lack of church government. The document also provides some firsthand testimony as to the influence ofpietistic thinking on his family,similar to those experienced by the Otterbeins, as noted elsewhere in this issue of the journal It is derivedfrom A History of the Methodist Episcopal Church (Third Revised Edition) by Nathan Bangs (1853), Vol. 11, Book V, Chapter 2. Bangs produces this particular excerpt as a reprint of an earlier essay in Methodist Magazine (Vol. VI). It is available online at httpil I www, ccel, orvlbl bangs I history mec/HME C19.HTM. It has no independent verification and must be read with appropriate caution. Jacob Boehm, the great-grandfather of one of the distinguished subjects of the following notices, was of a respectable family in Switzerland; and, as is presumed, a member of the German Presbyterian [Reformed] Church. His son Jacob was put to a trade; and after faithfully serving out his time, he, according to the custom of his country, set out upon his three years' travels. In his wanderings through Germany he fell in with the Pietists; a people in their faith, discipline, and worship, resembling, in a good degree, the Methodists, but more closely the societies and congregations formed by William Otterbein and Martin Boehm. Upon our traveler's return to the parental roof he talked in a style that neither his father nor the parson could comprehend; they were natural men, and understood not the things of God. His evangelical conversation mingled, most probably, with reproof of the vices and Pharisaism of the day, brought, by necessary consequence, persecution upon him; and he was sent, guarded by an elder brother, to prison. He escaped, however, from his confinement, and sought a refuge in Germany, where he remained, having 42 settled near the Rhine. He shortly after attached himself to the Menonists [sic], became an honored elder in that church, and, we trust, died in the Lord. His son Jacob, the third, was also a member in the Menonist church. He gave an example of sobriety, temperance, and industry to his children and neighborhood before and after his emigration to Pennsylvania, in 1716 or '17; and was honored in both countries. As a professor of religion he lived up the light he had; but it was under the ministry of his better instructed son, Martin Boehm, that he was blest with superior illumination. He died in peace at the family plantation on Pecaway [Pequea], Cones toga town ship, Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, aged eighty-seven years. The son of Jacob Boehm the third, Martin Boehm, of whom we desire to speak more particularly, was born in November, 1725. The labors and experience of his life, as a professor of religion and minister of Christ, may be pretty justly estimated by what we learn from himself, communicated in answers to certain questions propounded to him by his son Jacob, which we here transcribe: Question: Father, when were you put into the ministry? Answer: My ministerial labors began about the year 1756. Three years afterward, by nomination of the lot, I received full pastoral orders. Question: What had been your religious experience at that time? Answer: I was sincere and strict in the religious duties of prayer in my family, in the congregation, and in the closet. I lived and preached according to the light 1 had. I was a sen-ant, and not a son; nor did I know any one at that time who could claim the birthright by adoptionbut Nancy Keagy, my mother's sister; she was a woman of great piety' and singular devotion to God. Question: By what means did you discover the nature and necessity of a real change of heart? Answer: By deep meditation upon the doctrines which I myself preached of the fall of man, hissinful state, and utter helplessness, I discovered and felt the want of Christ within. About the year 1761, hearing of a great work of God in New Virginia among the New Lights, as they were called, I 43 resolved to find the truth more fully. 1 accordingly visited those parts, and saw many gracious souls who could give a rational and Scriptural account of their experience and acceptance with God; these assurances roused me to greater efforts to obtain the blessing. On my return, very large congregations assembled to hear the word, not only on the Sabbaths, but on week-days also. My zeal displeased some of my brethren in the ministry; but my heart was enlarged, and I had an earnest travail of soul to extend the knowledge of salvation to Jew and Gentile. 1 enlarged the sphere of my labors as much as my situation in life would permit. Question: Were your labors owned of the Lord in the awakening and conversion of souls? Answer: Yes, many were brought to the knowledge of the truth. But it was a strange work; and some of the Menonist meeting houses were closed against me. Nevertheless, I was received in other places. I now preached the gospel spiritually and powerfully. Some years afterward I was excommunicated from the Menonist Church on a charge, truly enough advanced, of holding fellowship with other societies of a different language. I had invited the Menonites to my house, and they soonformed the society in the neighborhood which exists to this day: my beloved wife Eve, my children, and my cousin Keagy's family, were among the first of its members. For myself, I felt my heart more greatly enlarged toward all religious persons and to all denominations of Christians. Upwards of thirty years ago 1 became acquainted with my gready beloved brother, William Otterbein, and several other ministers, who about this time had been ejected from their churches, as 1 had been from mine, because of their zeal, which was looked upon as an irregularity. We held many and large meetings in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Virginia, which generally lasted three days: at these meetings hundreds were made thesubjects of penitence and pardon. Being convinced of the necessity of order and discipline in the church of God, and having no wish to be at the head of a 44 separate body, I advised serious persons to join the Methodists, whose doctrine, discipline, and 2eal suited, as I thought, an unlearned, sincere, and simple hearted people. Several of theministers with whom I labored, continued to meet in a conference of the German United Brethren; but we felt the difficulties arising from the want of that which the Methodist possessed. Age having overtaken me, with some of its accompanying infirmities, I could not travel as I had formerly done. In 1802 I enrolled my name on a Methodist class-book, and I have found great comfort in meeting with my brethren. I can truly say my last days are my best days. My beloved Eve is traveling with me the same road Zionward; my children, and most of my grandchildren, are made the happy partakers of the same grace. I am, this 12th of April, 1811, in my eighty-sixth year. Through the boundless goodness of my God, I am still able to visit the sick, and occasionally, to preach in the neighborhood: to his name be all the glory in Christ Jesus! Martin Boehm died on the 23d of March, 1812. His death was thought to have been hastened by an imprudent change of dress. Bishop Asbury, in a sermon preached upon the occasion of the death of his long- known and long-loved friend, improved the opportunity by mentioning some further particulars of him, of his friends, and of the work of God in which he and they had labored. His observations are, with the alteration and substitution of a few sentences and words, as follow: Martin Boehm had frequent and sincere conflicts in his own mind, produced by the necessity he felt himself under of offending his Menonist brethren by the zeal and doctrines of his ministry: some he gained; but most of them opposed him. He had difficulties also with his United Brethren. It was late in life that he joined the Methodists, to whom, long before, his wife and children had attached themselves: the head of the househad two societies to pass through to arrive at the Methodists, and his meek and quiet spirit kept him back. Honest and unsuspecting, he had not a strange face for strange people. He did not make the gospel a charge to any one; his reward was souls and glory. His conversation was in 45 heaven. Plain in dress and manners, when age had stamped its impress of reverence upon him, he filled the mind with the noble idea of a patriarch. At the head of a family, a father, a neighbor, a friend, a companion, there was one prominent feature of his character which distinguished him from most men—it was goodness; you felt that he was good. His mind was strong and well stored with the learning necessary for one whose aim is to preach Christ with apostolic zeal and simplicity. The virtue of hospitality was practiced by his family as a matter of course; and in following the impulse of their own generous natures, the members of his household obeyed the oft-repeated charge of their head to open his doors to the houseless, that the weary may be solaced and the hungry fed. And what a family was here presented to an observant visitor! Here was order, quiet, occupation. The father, if not absent on a journey of five hundred miles in cold, hunger, privations, and labor, proclaiming the glad tidings of salvationto his dispersed German brethren, might, by his conduct under his own root, explain to a careful looker-on the secret of a parent's success in rearing a family to the duties of piety', to the diligent and useful occupation of time, and to the uninterrupted exhibition of reflected and reciprocated love, esteem, and kindness in word and deed. If it is true, as will be readily allowed that Martin Boehm had an able help-mate in his pious wife. The offspring of this noble pair have done them honor—the son Jacob, immediately upon his marriage, took on himself the management of the farm, that his excellent father might, "without carefulness," extend his labors more far and wide. A younger son, Henry, is a useful minister in the Methodist connection, having the advantage of being able to preach in English and German. We are willing to hope that the children of Martin Boehm, and his children's children to the fourth and latest generations, will have cause to thank God that his house, for fifty years, has been a house for the welcome reception of gospel ministers, and one in which the worship of God has been uninterruptedly preserved and practiced! O ye children and grandchildren! O, rising generation, who have 46 so often heard the prayers of this man of God in the houses of your fathers! O, ye Germans, to whom he has long preached the word of truth, Martin Boehm being dead yet speaketh! O hear his voice from the grave, exhorting you to repent, to believe, and to obey. But our beloved brother, who has gone to his high reward, was not the only laborer in the vineyard. Will it be hazarding too much to say that in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, there were one hundred preachers and twenty thousand people in the communion of the United Brethren? Many of these faithful men have gone to glow; and many are yet alive to preach to congregated thousands. Pre-eminent among these is William Otterbein, who assisted in the ordination which set apart your speaker to the superintendence7 of the Methodist Episcopal Church. William Otterbein was regularly ordained to the ministry in the German Presbyterian Church. He is one of the best scholars and the greatest divines in America. Why then is he not where he began? He was irregular. Alas, for us; the zealous are necessarily so to those whose cry has been, "put me into the priests' office, that I may eat a morsel of bread." Ostervald has observed, "Hell is paved with the skulls of unfaithful ministers." Such was not Boehm. Such is not Otterbein; and now, his sun of life is setting in brightness: behold the saint of God leaning upon his staff, waiting for the chariots of Israel! I pause here to indulge in reflections upon the past. Why was the German reformation in the middle states, that sprang up with Boehm, Otterbein, and their helpers, not more perfect? Was money, was labor made a consideration with these primitive men? No; they wanted not the one, and heeded not the other. They all hadhad church membership, as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Moravians, Dunkers, Menonists. The spiritual men of these societies generally united with the reformers; but they brought along with them the formalities, superstitions, and peculiar opinions of religious education. There was no master-spirit to rise up and organize and lead them. Some of theministers located, and only added to their charge partial traveling labors; and all were independent. It remains to be proved whether a reformation, in any country, 47 or under any circumstances, can be perpetuated without a well-directed itinerancy. But those faithful men of God were not the less zealous in declaring the truth because they failed to erect a church government.... We feel ourselves atliberty to believe that these German heralds of grace congregated one hundred thousand souls; that they have twenty thousand in fellowship and communion, and one hundred zealous and acceptable preachers 48 The Missionary life of Lloyd Eby in Sierra Leone, 1944-1947 Joni R. Michaud Joni K Michaud is a senior history major in the pre-law program at Huntington College. She lives near Clarksvilk, Michigan, where she is an active member of the Pleasant Valley U. B. Church. Her interest in Sierra Yjeone and Uoyd Eby began with theinfluence ofBethel Mote, one of her Sunday School teachers, who served as a missionary teacher in Sierra Leone. This paper won Huntington College's S. G. Whittle Johnston Memorial Award in History in 2003. Lloyd Eby was a man whose heart was in the ministry of the United Brethren Church. Ordained in 1926 by Bishop F. L. Hoskins, he was active as a church planter and pastored congregations in Indiana, Michigan, and Ontario, Canada. Eby served as superintendent for the Ontario, Detroit, and Auglaize conferences of the U.B. Church, and he served as a bishop foreight years, from 1949-1957.1 Before Lloyd Eby became a bishop of the United Brethren in Christ Church, he served in the mission field from 1944 to 1947 as superintendent of the U.B. conference in Sierra Leone. As a missionary to Africa, he stepped into a new climate, culture, and for threeyears he led a life extraordinarily different from the one he had left in the United States. What was missionary life like in Sierra Leone in the mid-1940s, as seen through the eyes of Lloyd Eby? Although it would be impossible to explore every aspect of his sendee in Africa, Eby kept a thorough diary while in the mission field, recording details regarding his day-to-day living conditions, relationships with the natives, experiences with other missionaries, and his spiritual life.2 Concentrating on these four aspects of missionary life provides a well- rounded picture not only of Eby's actual experience, but of his character as well. Eby's account begins not in Africa, but at home in Michigan amidst the hectic preparations of Eby and his companions for their upcoming journey.3 The trip commenced without serious incident, but the group soon ran into difficulty. Because they were traveling in the midst of World War II, 49 Eby and those with him had to face the typical problems that were associated with wartime travel: people who had priority traveled first—and missionaries did not have priority.4 From the time Eby and the other missionaries completed the first leg of their journey and arrived in Natal, Brazil, they had to wait at least six weeks—until June 5, 1944—before they could depart for Sierra Leone.5 One of the first things that Eby faced upon his arrival in Africa was the stark contrast in climate from his home in Detroit, Michigan.6 Eby and his companions, including his wife Eula, landed at Port Roberts, Sierra Leone, in June, during the rainy season. That was only the beginning of their tropical experience. During their years in Sierra Leone, the rains were so heavy at times that they later caused brand new buildings to collapse, including a new school that the missionaries constructed at Mattru in 1945. In addition, Sierra Leone's rainy season brought on severe storms and tornadoes, which damaged Eby's home on more than one occasion. This included the loss of a portion of the Ebys' roof, as well as an episode in which Lloyd and Eula were awakened in the middle of the night by the worst storm of the season and were able to exit the house in time to avoid falling timbers from their roof as it caved in. Fortunately, he and his wife were not harmed during these events.9 The house where Lloyd and Eula Eby stayed in Gbangbaia had been much improved since their previous stay in Sierra Leone some twenty years earlier. Extra rooms had been added, including a bathroom, and the ventilation was also better.10 However, there had been a shortage of boards, so the floor was badly damaged, and a number of boards were "missing altogether."" Still, Eby was thankful even for the discomforts of his African abode, because they served as a reminder of how much he had to be grateful for, and in this way it was always clear to Eby what his blessings were. An uncomfortable bed, "holey" roof, simple food—these were things for which Eby could wholeheartedly thank God. 12 The closer he had to nothing, the more he was appreciative of having anything at all. While in Sierra Leone, Eby tried his hand at gardening—African style.13 Unfortunately, this entailed much work with little success. He planted various kinds of seeds,14 but had trouble with beans especially, as they were constantly being eaten by bugs.15 In fact, at one point Eby's bean crop failed to come up after six plantings because of the ravenous African insects. ' Eby eventually had better luck with a fewof his crops, but still had times when "only a few carrots and beets survived the attack of the ants."1' Eby had further difficulties with his adventure in domesticity': at one point he recorded that six of his fowl had been lost to snake bites in a single season.18 Fortunately, native parishioners were more than willing to bring food to the 50 missionaries when they visited, so even when the garden—or the poultry, for that matter—did poorly, nourishment was available.19 Bugs in the garden were not the only problem. Bees invaded the Ebys' home on more than one occasion.20 Poisonous centipedes also were quite plentiful,21 and with them the unpleasant possibility of a centipede sting in the middle of the night.22 One day Eby seemed fed up with the tiny creatures, writing of the numerous bugs with which he coexisted: "They get inside my shirt and up my pantlegs. They have no respect for my degnified [sic] station in life."23 At least he was able to keep his sense of humor. Eby experienced surprisingly good health during his term in Sierra Leone. In fact, he and other missionaries were just beginning to be comfortable with the cooler weather in late 1944 when the native community began to succumb to fever and colds.24 Fortunately,the missionaries were generally able to avoid illness. Most of Eby's ailments were minor aches and pains, canker sores, and exhaustion.23 He did nothave his first bout with malaria until he had been in the country for nearly two years!26 After his second episode with malaria later that same year, Eby wrote: "It is strange how one can be out here for years and have many experiences and yet malaria will stage a surprise onset about midnight." Despite such unpleasant incidents, Eby was grateful for his overall good health while in the mission field.27 One difficulty that can be easily overlooked by some is the problem with overseas mail deliver}'. Eby felt this acutely, as he had left two daughters behind in the United States—arguably one of the most difficult choices he evermade.28 There were periods when the mail came with some regularity,29 but more often than not letters did not reach their African destination for weeks or even months at a time.30 For example, Eby recorded in April of 1946 that he had not heard from his daughters since January, and when mail was delivered by boat in December of 1946, there were letters dated as early as the previous August.31 To aidin his missionary work, Eby began to study the Mende languagewith interest soon afterhis arrival in Sierra Leone.32 By the following Fall, however, Eby had lost some of his enthusiasm.33 Language study proved a difficult task for Eby, primarily because single small words could have many diverse meanings. "This Mende language is a strange one...[o]nly the Lord can ever make me speak it."34 In spite of this sentiment, Eby kept trying because "[o]ne feels so helpless with the language barrier"31 and, although he did not especially enjoy it, Eby felt good about his Mende studies/6 He even longed to have more time to devote to learning the language: "I could think of no greater honor than to be able to preach fluently in the vernacular and to labor as an evangelist all through this 51 conference."37 However, more time was simply not available, especially considering his responsibilities as the superintendent of the U.B. conference in Sierra Leone. Mission work in Sierra Leone required Eby to do a great deal of traveling. Not only was it time consuming, with trips sometimes lasting more than two weeks at a stretch,39 but travel was also difficult4" and generally uncomfortable.41 This was amplified by the hardship of broken down bridges42 and boats that would cease working mid-journey.43 In addition, both Eby and his wife Eula suffered from lumbago and rheumatic knees, making long treks physically painful.44 Still, Eby maintained a positive outlook regarding his travels, writing "ft]he Lord never yet failed me when the going is hard...."45 At times Eby had to make trips throughout the conference without his wife, and he was always keenly aware of her absence. ' Eby and Eula occasionally had pleasant trips together,47 but even so, Eby felt that "[e]ven in Africa there is no place like home."48 Through it all, he believed that the building of the African church was an abundant reward for what he deemed a "slight sacrifice."49 During his travels throughout Sierra Leone, Eby met countless indigenous people and was instrumental in the establishment and dedication of many new churches.50 Eby often participated in baptismal and new membership sendees as well.51 One Easter a baptismal sendee took place at Kabati with a membership sendee to follow that evening. "A fitting climax was the baptism of the Pastor. Pastor George had been baptized as a small child and wished to have the experience now that he is a believer."52 Eby also records a rather amusing episode from a sendee in February of 1946: "A young miss of about 14 slipped off her lappa when it came her turn to be baptized and came in for baptism a la nude. As they thot [sic] nothing of it I just went ahead after my first gulp."53 These inroads of the church were often embraced,54 but there were occasions when missionaries were clearly not welcome. In the village of Gbongbotoke for example, some of the people "objected so vehemently [to the building of a chapel] that no action was taken."55 Later in the same community, officials of the church there requested that Eby remove U.B. workers from the entire chieftaincy. ° One aspect of the Sierra Leonean view of the mission was rather frustrating to Eby as he carried out his duties as superintendent. They seemed to seethe mission as an unending source of money-an entity that was "able to pay and pay."57 Eby wasbogged down with the endless requests for money,58 and felt that "[ijt would be ever so much more encouraging just to lead them to the Lord."5'' He did his best to be economical in his 52 expenditures, but found that the money went rather quickly and hoped that the board would be sympathetic to his situation.60 Eby was always grateful when the accounts balanced,61 as financing was a burden to him.62 This is mentioned throughout his diary, along with the frequent observation, "How quickly the money flies!" There were days when nothing seemed to go well for Eby and his financial work—one time he could not even get the safe to open!63 He worried over the possible consequences of a second "economic crash,"64 and coveted the time he spent balancing the books and organizing the payrollfor more spiritual pursuits.65 In addition, Eby even had to deal with critical letters from fellow workers who were dissatisfied with their pay. "I am learning how missionary superintendents keep humble, another very unkind letter from a young teacher who has received 11 pounds increase during the pastyear but still is very vexed at our selfishness."66 He began to feel that some of the people were merely "accomplished beggars," and prayed, "God forgive my cynicism."6' The missionaries also had to contend with superstition in some areas, as well as the emerging trend of nationalism. For instance, of the people of Kpetema Eby wrote: "Many fear to come to church lest they displease their tribal [g]ods."68 Eby observed a strong nationalistic influence in Mattru,69 and later went so far as to say, "[t]heir National Characteristic is a curse to them spiritually."70 Furthermore, even in areas where the church was strong, Eby observed a pattern of dishonesty among the indigenous people.71 He was also discouraged by the laziness of the workers employed by the mission,72 and craved them for the Lord.73 At Gbangbaia, daily family devotions were held with all of the workmen,74 and Eby watched their spiritual progress,75 declaring that he would "not rest until they have all been saved."76 There was much to be pleased about in the Sierra Leone churches, though. Eby encountered many good people,77 and there was a real interest in the church. Throughout his diary Eby records increases in church attendance, as well as a strong presence at numerous revival meetings.78 Many new mission schools were planned and built as well.79 The people of Sierra Leone were hearing the gospel and new believers were regularly won for Christ. Eby said of his native brothers and sisters, "Race seems so trivial when we are one before God or better, one in Christ."81 Eby enjoyed the opportunity to fellowship with missionaries outside of the U.B. church,82 believing that God would use such relationships for His glory.83 He was able to observe the work of the Catholic Church when he first arrived in Port Roberts, Sierra Leone. He conversed with the priest there, Father Okre, who intimated that his church was having difficulty' 53 reaching the Sierra Leoneans, as they seemed to only desire civilization. 84 No doubt this helped to prepare Eby for some of theobstacles he would face when striving to reach the indigenous population. When visiting a missionary couple in Freetown, Eby observed that other missions shared in the same troubles as where he served,83 surely an encouragement to an occasionally disheartened superintendent. Another time, in referring toa Wesleyan pastor with whom he had spent some time, he remarked, "He seems more spiritual than most out here."86 Perhaps most pleasing to Eby was the collaborative effort that went into the college at Bunumbu, especially the apparent lack of "sectarian consciousness" on the campus.87 Most of Eby's experiences, however, were with his fellow United Brethren missionaries. He described Annual Conference in 1945 as a "fruitful and harmonious session" with a "spirit of Evangelism."88 Eby observed that many of his U.B. brothers and sisters were "faithful servants"89 who were being used by the Lord.90 He wrote: "It is a wonderful experience to see God work. We have had some fine evidence of it."91 Eby was particularly generous in his praise of co-worker H J. Becker—a good pastor "even for the missionaries."92 He was pleased that "Bro[ther] Becker stays awayfrom ritualism and preaches a powerful gospel,"93 and commended him as a "tireless worker for the kingdom."94 This is not to say that problems never came up. Tensions did arise at times between missionary workers. Eby wrote of one missionary teacher in Freetown that she was "too proud," and that her attitude toward at least one co-worker was "insufferable."93 Eby's wife also observed a strain at times and noted that one worker's unhappiness caused that of others.96 However, these difficulties could eventually be worked out.9' Unfortunately, the missionaries had to confront grievous sin in one of their own: in 1945, the headmaster at Danville confessed to having lived in adultery for nearly a year after it was discovered that he had beaten his wife for protesting.98 The man seemed genuinely repentant when he later spoke with Eby though,99 and after a brief suspension100 was reinstated at half salary later that year101 because there was a shortage of teachers at die school.102 Near the end of Eby's term in Sierra Leone,he experienced a series of fiascos because of a missionary teacher who had a rather unstable mental condition andwas staying with him and his wife. These events included purposefully overdosing on quinine,103 accusing the Ebys of lying and opening her letters,104 and false claims of a lost appetite—she was found secretly eating in the kitchen a short while later.103 Certainly the most disturbing event was when sheshut herself in her upstairs room, set some of her clothes on fire, andburned a hole in the Ebys' roof] Afterward she ran off and fought being brought back. When she had been returned to the Ebys' 54 home, "[s]he asked me in the forenoon why we wanted to put her in a convent. Saturday morning she said she heard me say I intended to shoot her." ' Eby expressed an understandable (and perhaps understated) concern when he wrote in his diary: "We do need a better system of obtaining and selecting missionaries."10 Because Eby was ministering to so many others, he realized the importance of maintaining his own close relationship with Christ. He wanted to be like a father to his fellow missionaries,1"* and a guide to native believers.109 Eby fleshed out this desire as a teacher of the "Men's Class" that met weekly. He was faithful in prayer not only for the church in Africa, but also for the family of believers he had left behind in the United States: he would pray for African revival and a number of times would stay up late at night to "pray around" Detroit for his friends, family, and fellow believers.11" He enjoyed daily Bible study with his wife, Eula. In his diary Eby describes a new method of Bible study that he and Eula developed for their personal use, in which they would read a passage of scripture and write it out in their own words. Both benefited spiritually from this experience or, as Eby would have it, "received a blessing."111 Spiritual growth was near to Eby's heart. He longed for a closer walk with God,112 but was not confident that he had the courage to ask for the tests that would result in real spiritual progress.113 In fact, he wrote: "It takes almost more faith than I have to ask the Lord to break me. I'd rather pray, 'Lead me not into temptation and deliver me from evil. Yet I do welcome the hard things necessary to my Christian growth."114 Above all, Eby had faith in the goodness of God, whether or not he experienced times of trial.115 Reading about heroes of the faith and missionary pioneers in Africa, such as C.T. Studd, Eby at times felt inadequate to follow in their footsteps.116 Eby aspired to continue in fruitful service as he got older,11' saying, "Lord, help me to do a little more,"118 and he truly reveled in following the Lord's leading, no matter what the destination.119 Eby's passion forthe lost is evident in his writing,120 and he lamented that more people were not willing to be sent into the world to further the cause of Christ—those who were complacent, mediocre Christians andwere "fiddling while Rome burns."121 Even Eby himself longed to do more through personal contact with the people. He prayed that he might be used of God "in spite of all hindrances."122 Near the beginning of his ministry in Sierra Leone, Eby wrote: "...the feet may be sore the body may be sweltering, the nerves frazzeled [sic] but the heart is trusting, the faith is leaning, the soul is rejoicing. It's good to be in the Dear Lord's will. The peace is as Jesus promised—past understanding."123 55 Grateful for the opportunity to add to the number being saved, Eby still longed for his heavenly dwelling. He summed up his attitude toward earth and heaven this way: "The memory of the past is sweet. The anticipation of the future is glorious."124 What was Lloyd Eby's missionary experience like? Clearly his every day life was as unpredictable as it was challenging. Coping with a new climate, wildlife, and an entirely different culture certainly served to complicate the nature of his ministry. He cultivated relationships with and influenced natives as well as fellow missionaries, whether within or without the United Brethren denomination. The challenges he faced encouraged daily- prayer and devotions, and through this he grew spiritually, and became daily more able to serve those in need. Most importandy, Eby accomplished threeyears of the work God called him to do, producing much fruit for the advance of the gospel in Sierra Leone. He could look back on this time with satisfaction, knowing that he had served the Lord faithfully and willingly. Eby considered it a privilege to be chosen for such service, and worth any sacrifice that he was able to make. Difficulties were of little consequence to Eby when he had such spiritual riches. He received the high calling of bringing the message of salvation to the lost, and filled his position well. Overall Eby's missionary life as superintendent of the U.B. conference in Sierra Leone was significandy rewarding and, moreover, was beneficial to those workers who would follow. 1 "Lloyd Eby 1891-1969," The United Brethren (December 17, 1969): 14. 2 Lloyd Eby. "Diary of Lloyd Eby: April 10, 1944-December 30, 1947." Unpublished ms., United Brethren Historical Center, Huntington, Indiana, 212 pp. Lloyd Eby's diary is kept in the archives of the Richlyn Library located on the campus of Huntington College. It is typewritten and does not have consistent consecutive pagination. 3 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 10, 1944. 4 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for April 19-22, 1944. 5 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 5, 1944. 6 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for June 16, 1944 and July 24, 1944. 7 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 8, 1944. 8 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for August 20, 1945. Fortunately, the Mattru district had the funds to erect another new school at their earliest opportunity. 9 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for November 19, 1946, and May 9, 1947, for examples. 10 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for June 20-21, 1944. " Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 21, 1944. 12 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for March 31, 1946. 13 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 18, 1944. 14 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 22, 1944. 15 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 21, 1945. 16 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 26, 1945. 56 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 24, 1946. Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 15, 1945. 19 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for July 21, 1944, and December 9, 1944, for early examples. 20 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for October 26, 1944, and November 8, 1944. 2' Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 28, 1946. 22 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for November 4, 1946. 23 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 27, 1946. 24 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for November 5 (misdated October 5) and 8, 1944. 25 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for September 17, 1944; June 21, 1945; May 29 and 30 1946. 26 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for March 5, 1946. 27 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 16, 1947. 28 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 21, 1946. Of leaving his daughters behind two years earlier, Eby writes, "That is the only thing I ever did which I felt is worthy of the name of sacrifice." 29 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 3, 1945. 30 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 10, 1945. 31 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for April 7, 1946, and December 14, 1946. 32 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 16,1944. 33 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 21, 1945. 34 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 30, 1944. 35 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 22, 1944. 36 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 22, 1945. 37 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for November 24, 1946. 38 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for January 5, 1945, and November 24, 1946. 39 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for December 8-20, 1944. 40 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for March 29, 1945, and December 30, 1946. 41 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 19, 1947: "I guess there just isn't any comfortable mode of travel in this land." 42 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entry for July 15, 1944, for an example. There are mentions of poor traveling conditions throughout the diary. 43 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for January 27,1947. 44 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for July 4, 1945. 45 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for July 16, 1944. 46 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for January 17 and 28, 1945, for examples. 47 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 15, 1946: "We cycled home the 18 miles today. Pretty good for two old folks." 48 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for January 30,1945. 49 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for July 18, 1944. 50 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for February 15, 1945; March 30, 1945; March 31, 1945; June 9, 1946; December 29, 1946; April 20, 1947; and June 22, 1947, for examples. 51 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for October 18, 1944; November 19, 1944; December 3, 1944; December 10, 1944; and April 8, 1945, for examples. 52 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 1, 1945. 53 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for February 25, 1946. 57 54 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for December 8, 1944 [misdated December 9]; December 16, 1944; October 30, 1945; May 12, 1946; January 16, 1947; and February 25, 1947, for examples. 55 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for August 3, 1945. 56 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for August 14, 1945. 57 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for July 14, 1944. 58 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for September 11 and 13, 1944. 59 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 26, 1944. 60 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for December 30, 1944. 61 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 28, 1945. 62 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for July 7, 1945 (misdated July 6). 63 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for January 31, 1946. 64 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for March 22, 1946. Eby is likely referring to the Great Depression, which was only dispelled by the advent of World War II. Since the war had ended, a slump in the economy seemed to be a reasonable expectation. 65 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for January 5 and July 24, 1945. 66 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 27, 1945. It is unclear whether this "young teacher" was a native of Sierra Leone or an American. 67 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 3, 1945. 68 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 30, 1946. 69 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 2, 1945. 70 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for November 25, 1946. 71 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for August 13, 1945, and May 18, 1946. 72 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for December 18, 1946; see also entries for May 2 and 18, 1945, for examples. 73 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for February 18, 1945. 74 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for July 26, 1944. 75 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for September 21, 1944; October 8, 1944; and January 7, 1945, for examples. 76 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 22, 1944. 77 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entriesfor June 8, 1944; July19 and 21, 1944. 78 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for December 6, 1944 (misdated December 7); October 30, 1945; and February 25, 1947. 79 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for December 14 and 16, 1944, and March 31, 1945. 80 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for October 18 and 22, 1944; September 22, 1945; November 4, 1945; and December 3, 1946. 81 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for July 23, 1944. 82 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for January 1, 1947. 83 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 28, 1946. 84 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 8, 1944. 85 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for February 6, 1947. 86 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 28, 1946. 87 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for June 6, 1946. 88 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Block entry for January 8-16, 1945. 89 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for July 19, 1944. 90 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for December 10, 1944. 91 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for August 26, 1945. 92 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 9, 1945. 58 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for January 7, 1945. Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 29, 1945. 95 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 24, 1945. 96 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 28, 1946. 97 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for November 17, 1945. 98 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for August 7, 1945. 99 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for August 16, 1945. 100 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for August 19, 1945. 10! Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 31, 1945. 102 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for August 27, 1945. 103 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 2, 1947. 104 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 14, 1947. 105 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 18, 1947. 106 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 19, 1947. 107 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 10, 1947. 108 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for March 2, 1947. This was expressed after Eby received a birthday card from a young missionary that contained a message saying that she regarded him as a father. 109 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for September 29, 1944, and March 8, 1946. 110 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." See entries for July 24, 1944, and October 6, 1946, for examples. 111 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for August 9 and 14, 1945. 1l2 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for February 4, 1947. 113 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for May 18, 1945. 114 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for September 19, 1944. 115 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for April 21, 1946. 116 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entries for April 15, 1945; October 17, 1945; and October 14 1946. 117 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 18, 1946. 118 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 17, 1945. 119 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for March 2, 1945. 120 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 22, 1944. 121 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for October 15, 1946. 122 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for November 27, 1945. 123 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for November 12, 1944. 124 Lloyd Eby. "Diary." Entry for March 19, 1947. 59