Number 1, Fall 2000 - Huntington University

Journal of
United Brethren
History and Life
A Publication of the United Brethren Historical Society
Vol. I, No. 1,, Fall, 2000
Boehm's Chapel
In This Issue...
Historic United Brethren Distinctives Still Valid For Today
The 1800 Conference: A Glimpse of Primary Sources
Martin Boehm and the Formation of the Church of the
United Brethren in Christ
Revivalism and Democratization: The Church of the
United Brethren in Christ Before the Civil War
Licensing and Ordaining Women Ministers: Nineteenth
Century Developments in the Church of the United
Brethren in Christ

Journal of
United Brethren
History and Life
A Publication of the United Brethren Historical Society
Vol. I, No. 1., Fall, 2000
Preface
ii
Announcements
iii
Articles 1
Historic United Brethren Distinctiues Still Valid For Today
by Daryl Elliott : 1
The 1800 Conference: A Glimpse of Primary Sources ....12
Martin Boehm and the Formation of the Church of the
United Brethren in Christ by Bernard Fogle 15
Revivalism and Democratization: The Church of the
United Brethren in Christ Before the Civil War
by Anthony L. Blair 30
Licensing and Ordaining Women Ministers: Nineteenth
Century Developments in the Church of the United
Brethren in Christ by Chaney Bergdall 52
Editor
Anthony L. Blair, Ph.D.
Eastern College
Church of the United Brethren in Christ
©2000
United Brethren Historical Society

Welcome to the Inaugural Issue of the Journal of
United Brethren History and Life. This long-anticipated
publication fills a noted void in the study of the move
ment known as the Church of the United Brethren in
Christ.
The revivalist impulse caught by a small group of
German ministers during the Great Awakening has
been transmitted and expanded for nearly a quarter
millennium.
The organization they unintentionally cre
ated in response to external pressures has survived and
grown for two hundred years.
The commencement of this Journal in this bicenten
nial year is significant for more than simply the happy
conjunction of round numbers. As the United Brethren
movement becomes increasingly global and multicultur
al, it becomes imperative to identify the common expe
riences, traditions, roots, and values that provide a dis
tinctive identity to the people known as the United
Brethren. This publication, and the organization that
sponsors it, will attempt to help to supply that need.
This issue concentrates on the character of that
movement in its first century after organization. Daryl
Elliott's insightful essay on the core characteristics of
the U.B. Church provides an excellent introduction to
the story writ large. This is followed by a short retelling
of the events of the 1800 Conference near Frederick,
Maryland, during which the denomination was born
and the first two bishops elected. One of those bishops
was Martin Boehm, who is often overlooked in favor of
his partner Philip William Otterbein.
Boehm's leadership in the early church is thus the
subject of a narrative taken from selections of a larger
work by Bernard Fogel. Then Anthony Blair discusses
how the United Brethren were transformed from a rel
atively isolated German minority into an Anglicized,
reformist, expanding denomination in the early nine
teenth century. Finally, Chaney Bergdall focuses on the
issue of granting ministerial credentials to women to
determine how nineteenth century United Brethren
handled this delicate reform issue.
11

Formation of the
United Brethren Historical
Society
The Church of the United Brethren in Christ
announces the formation of the United Brethren
Historical Society. The Society is founded to promote
the distinctive standards, teachings, and history of the
Church of the United Brethren in Christ.
Membership is open to all individuals interested in
the history of the United Brethren Church.
Institutional memberships ($35.00) include a subscrip
tion to the Journal of United Brethren History and Life
and the United Brethren Historical Center Newsletter
only. Patron memberships ($100.00) are for individuals
wishing to contribute to the operation and major pro
jects of the Historical Society. Individual ($20.00) and
patron memberships in the History Society include vot
ing privileges at the annual meeting, a subscription to
the Journal of United Brethren History and Life and
the UBHC Newsletter, reduced prices on Historical
Society publications and events, and borrowing privi
leges at the United Brethren Historical Center Library.
Type of Membership : Individual
Institution
($20.00)
($35.00)
Patron ($100.00)
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Send payment to:
U.B. Historical Society
Huntington College
2303 College Ave.
Huntington, IN 46750
111

Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts
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 personali
ties, events, and locations are accepted, those that interpret the
U.B. movement within a broader historical context are particu
larly sought. The Journal prints scholarly essays, certain types
of popular narrative, book reviews, announcements, and occa
sionally items of a miscellaneous nature.
What kinds of articles are accepted? The following questions,
if answered in the affirmative, may indicate that a particular
topic may be of interest to the editor and readers of the Journal:
• Does it reveal an aspect of the United Brethren character
that has not been adequately explored elsewhere?
• Does it avoid hagiography or over-celebratory treatment of
United Brethren persons or events?
• Does it make the life of a common United Brethren in a par
ticular time and place "come alive" for the reader?
• Does it help the reader understand how United Brethren poli
cies, values, and doctrines were applied at the local level?
• Does it explain how the United Brethren movement either
influenced, or was influenced by, larger cultural forces at
work in the world?
• Does it offer a global context?
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
and Corel WordPerfect are 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 College
750 East Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17111
ablair@eastern.edu
IV

Historic United Brethren Distinctives
Still Valid for Today
Daryl M. Elliott
Daryl Elliott is Senior Pastor of the Mt. Pleasant United
Brethren Church near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. He holds a
Ph.D. in Church History from Drew Theological Seminary.
Introduction
This is an exciting time for those interested in the history and
heritage of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. The
year 2000 is the bicentennial of the official organization of the
United Brethren Church, which occurred when a group of itiner
ant preachers, headed by Philip William Otterbein and Martin
Boehm, met at the home of Peter Kemp in Frederick, Maryland.
The decisions made at that 1800 conference laid the groundwork
for the denomination that now exists.
But the year 2000 is also significant because the United
Brethren church has just inaugurated an historical society, with
the mission of studying and preserving United Brethren history,
thought, and culture. The United Brethren church has an excit
ing story that needs to be preserved and told. Obviously, there is
much to be learned from its heritage, a heritage that is extreme
ly relevant and useful to the denomination's ongoing ministry.
While some are tempted to downplay the importance of history
in this modern, forward-looking society, they do so at their peril.
That is particularly true for church history, since church his
tory is not just the telling of the story of what happened in the
past to a group of God's people. It is the story of God working
among those people. Since God does not change, by studying
church history one can learn about God's priorities, about the
way God works in this world, and the way he uses His living
body, the Church, to accomplish these priorities. That is why
church history is exciting and why one can learn so much that is
practical for ministry today.
This essay discusses six distinctives that have characterized
and helped define the United Brethren throughout history. Being
"distinctives," they tend to define the movement and describe the

values it holds. "Historical" means they have been characterizing
the church for many years. But, most importantly, it is the con
tention of this essay that these six historic United Brethren distinctivesare
still valid tools for defining United Brethren identi
ty today.
Radical
Conversion
Any study of United Brethren history will clearly reveal that,
from its founding until today, the one belief considered para
mount is that the human heart is by nature radically sinful. And,
in consequence of that fact, the heart is in need of radical con
version. The term "radical" was often added as modifier to point
out two things: the extreme extent to which humankind had fall
en, and the extreme grace that was needed to bring that person
back into relationship with God.
The United Brethren church has historically emphasized reli
gion of the heart, not religion of the head. The founders of the
church confronted assaults from all sides. On one hand was the
new rationalism of the Enlightenment, which questioned any
thing that could not be quantified, analyzed, and reasoned. At
the same time, Otterbein and Boehm had to deal with the lin
gering remains of Protestant Scholasticism, a seventeenth-cen
tury European movement that had systematized, but in many
ways also petrified, the originally dynamic teachings of the
Protestant founders. It was common among the colonial German
churches to emphasize the intellectual assent to a particular
written Confession or Catechism as the focus of one's saving
faith. Religion of the heart, on the other hand, believed that the
objective truths about God needed to make an objective change
in the life of the believer.
Similarly, belief in radical conversion emphasized a religion
of experience, not of tradition. While Otterbein grew up in the
rich tradition of the Reformed Church and Boehm of the
Mennonites, they did not allow these traditions to stand in the
way of their preaching about the need for all individuals, regard
less of religious tradition, to experience the same heartwarming,
and the same heart transformation that they had experienced.
For United Brethren, it was important for every Christian to

have a testimony of their heart's conversion and an assurance of
Christ's personal forgiveness and redemption.
Featured prominently in the early histories of the church are
the conversions of its two founders, Otterbein and Boehm.
Otterbein was confronted by a parishioner following a sermon
one Sunday in his Lancaster, Pennsylvania, church. The parish
ioner had obviously been spiritually awakened by the message
and was seeking further counsel from Otterbein about how his
heart could be fully at peace. Amazingly, Otterbein was shaken
by this man's question, unable to give an answer about some
thing that he had apparently never fully experienced himself. He
could only reply, "My friend, advice is scarce with me today." This
led Otterbein into an intense time of searching and prayer. As a
result, Otterbein obtained the full peace and assurance of
Christ's forgiveness that had been eluding him for so long. This
personal experience of Christ transformed Otterbein into the
powerful preacher and evangelist that he became.1
A similar story concerns the Mennonite farmer Martin Boehm
receiving his call to preach by the drawing of the lot. Boehm
recounted how inadequate he felt to pastor his new congregation.
He struggled even to speak a few words coherently from the pul
pit. One day as he was in his field plowing, he became over
whelmed with the state of his spiritual life and his own inade
quacies.
He described an intense impression on his heart that he
was verlohren, or "lost." At the end of one of the rows he bowed
in the field and received the pardon of his sins and the change of
his heart.2 As with Otterbein, this experience of God's power to
convert the heart transformed Boehm into a dynamic minister.
Because Otterbein, Boehm, and their fellow preachers had all
personally experienced the power of God to radically transform
their hearts, they felt compelled to preach that message of hope
to others. And that message has been carried forward ever since.
Holy Living
When a heart was radically converted, a radical change was
thought to have taken place in that life. The new believer who
had been a slave of sin was now set free to live a life of holiness
to God. These early United Brethren earnestly believed that sal-

vation should result in an actual change in actions and desires.
New life in Christ literally meant a new life lived out in the
world. The motto was "Holiness unto the Lord."
From his*background in Reformed Pietism, William Otterbein
had been taught the need to grow in sanctification so that the
power of the sin nature could be progressively diminished until
one theoretically reached a point in which he or she was free
from sin in this life. Otterbein believed this was possible and he
preached it from an early date.3
Otterbein's great disciple, the one who carried on leadership
of the movement following the death of the founders, was
Christian Newcomer. A German Mennonite, he joined the United
Brethren movement and rose to a position of leadership.
Newcomer's heart was enlarged toward believers from many dif
ferent Christian traditions. He was especially close to his
Methodist brethren. From his journal it is obvious that he adopt
ed the theology and terminology of sanctification and holiness
that the Methodists had received from their founder, John
Wesley. Newcomer preached not only that sinners needed to be
converted, but also that believers needed to experience the entire
sanctification, or purification of their hearts. The practical result
was a life that reflected more perfectly the example set by Jesus.
In the 1850s there was a revival of this Wesleyan doctrine of
holiness in the United Brethren church. This was promoted and
led by Bishop David Edwards. Many pastors took up this cause
and preached the need for Christian heart purity and holy living.
Many laypersons grew deeper in their commitment and devotion
to Christ as a result. Throughout the remainder of the nine
teenth century and well into the twentieth, holy living was con
sidered the goal to which all believers should strive.
The particular emphasis on holiness as detailed by John
Wesley is not accepted by all today; nevertheless, there should be
little problem in accepting the same goal: lives transformed by
God to such a point, that they more and more reflect the nature
of Christ. Questions as to the possibility of actually reaching per
fection in this life should not keep believers from at least striv
ing towards the mark.

Heartfelt Worship
The United Brethren church has historically not been
ashamed to expect this type of experiential religion to touch the
emotions. It has generally been accepted that a person receiving
the pardon of God's mercy should be so grateful to God that he or
she expresses that thankfulness in heartfelt worship.
The United Brethren church was organized at the outbreak of
the Second Great Awakening. This revival movement started in
the western regions of the country where the United Brethren
were strong. The most visible methodology utilized in the
Awakening was the campmeeting, a new technique for reaching
those who were unsaved. These meetings contained times of wor
ship much more intense than had been seen in most churches
previously. This intense form of very personal and experiential
worship greatly affected the United Brethren who eagerly joined
in this great movement and adopted much of its methodology.
In the early nineteenth century, singing was prominent in
religious gatherings. Journals of the early United Brethren
reveal that whenever believers gathered, they would always
have a time when they sang joyfully about the God who had
redeemed them. The congregations were expected to be active
participants in this worship. This was necessary since there was
no musical accompaniment upon which to rely. The people would
sing a cappella. In the midst of this worship there were often vis
ible demonstrations of emotion. Crying, laughing, clapping, and
shouting would sometimes accompany these times of worship. In
fact, they were often encouraged and seen as a sign of spiritual
life and vitality in the meeting.
More controversially, supernatural "signs and wonders" were
occasionally present. In the 1850s Bishop Milton Wright was
serving as a missionary in the frontier territory of Oregon. He
recounted a rather amazing event that took place while he was
leading a campmeeeting in his area. Following the preaching, a
woman was at the "mourner's bench" lifting her burdens before
God. Suddenly, she fell to the ground lifeless as though she were
dead. She was not, however. She was simply physically overcome
by the power of God. Milton Wright attempted to assist and con
sole the lady when he, too, without warning, collapsed to the

ground under the power of God. He said later that he could not
move because of the sensation. He needed to be carried to a near
by tent and wait for it to pass. According to Wright, these "falling
exercises" were common in the Oregon territory and experienced
by him personally for many years afterward.
These examples show that the United Brethren were not
ashamed to show their devotion to God even if it touched upon
the heart. Theirs was not a passive, intellectualized type of wor
ship, but one of active participation. In recent decades the United
Brethren church has been revitalized by its adoption of current
models of worship that also appeal to the heart and the emotions.
Far from being novel, this is simply a re-appropriation of its
roots.
Evangelistic Passion
From an historical perspective, concern for the lost was the
highest motivating factor for United Brethren people. While
other issues, priorities, and ideas may have been present as well,
none ever became greater than the desire to reach the unsaved
world with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. By looking at the
early ministries of Otterbein, Boehm, and other founders, one is
able to discern this passion that drove them to do what they did.
It was this passion that caused them to preach. It was this pas
sion that caused them to formally organize for more effective
ministry. And it was this passion that they handed down to fol
lowing generations. This overwhelming historic passion for evan
gelism has had numerous practical consequences. The church's
view of theology, education, the local church, the ministry,
methodology, and understanding of the world have all been influ
enced by the way the United Brethren have been affected by
their highest calling.
For example, from the start there was a willingness to use the
latest methodologies to reach people with the gospel. The itiner
ant system was a relatively recent invention in 1800. The
English Methodists developed it in the mid-eighteenth century
as a practical means of evangelizing the British Isles.
Transplanted to America, it proved an even more effective
method for evangelism. Comparing the first Discipline of the

United Brethren with that already published by the Methodists,
one observes that the United Brethren openly borrowed this flex
ible, yet hierarchical, structure that gave great freedom for an
enterprising preacher to reach out into new territories, to devel
op new converts, and to start new churches. The itinerancy was
not seen as an institution but as a methodology that worked.
Since it worked in the cause of evangelism it was adopted. If
some other methodology had been found to be more effective,
undoubtedly it would have been chosen instead.
Likewise, the adoption of campmeetings, or "big meetings," as
the United Brethren originally called them, was another exam
ple of utilizing new techniques for the purpose of effective evan
gelism. They were held out of doors when there were few struc
tures that could have held the large crowds that gathered. The
"newness" of these events created much interest and curiosity
among non-Christians, helping to bring those to the preaching of
Christ who actually needed to hear it. When the United Brethren
preachers, such as Christian Newcomer, saw the incredible suc
cess that the other evangelical churches were having with the
campmeeetings, it was an obvious decision to adopt them for
United Brethren use as well.
In the 1850s this evangelistic passion caused the United
Brethren to reach out across the ocean to Africa when the mis
sion work in Sierra Leone began. When the accounts of those
first North American missionaries are read, accounts that
describe the harrowing experiences they faced in mid-nineteenth
century Africa, there can be little doubt that it was their evan
gelistic passion that motivated them to go in the first place. And
it was that same evangelistic passion that caused them to stay.
If there is one historical distinctive that should never be lost,
it is undoubtedly this one. The early United Brethren could not
conceive of a church that was not genuinely motivated by love for
those who had not yet heard and received the message of salva
tion. That was their message, that was their calling, and that
was their passion.

Ecumenical Spirit
Probably most people
would not think of an ecumenical spir
it as being, an historical distinctive of the United Brethren
church. In modern parlance, the word "ecumenical" has taken on
negative connotations for many evangelicals. To some, it signifies
the forfeiture of long-held doctrinal beliefs, all in the name of
some form of nebulous "unity at all costs." This, of course, is not
how the term is used here.
Throughout the denomination's history, the ultimate basis for
Christian unity was a shared relationship with Jesus Christ.
That was seen as the true source of unity, not a particular
denominational tradition. In fact, the perfect illustration for this
truth is the composition of the early United Brethren movement.
Long before the United Brethren church was formally organized
in 1800, it was a loose, multi-denominational movement consist
ing of people from various religious traditions. Early ministers
included German Reformed, Mennonites, Dunkers, Amish, and
Lutherans. What they all experienced in common was personal
salvation. This task of evangelizing others caused many of the
traditional areas of religious disagreement to be downplayed.
The famous 1767 meeting at Isaac Long's barn in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania, was a perfect example of this.
Purportedly, at the end of a very powerful gospel message
preached by Martin Boehm, William Otterbein, who had never
before met Boehm, felt moved to embrace Boehm, saying, "Wir
sind Brudder," or "We are brethren."4 It was a radical step for a
formally-educated German Reformed cleric to embrace a selfeducated
Mennonite farmer-preacher. What made it possible was
Otterbein's realization that he preached the same message of
new life in Christ that Boehm was preaching.
This did not mean there were no differences of opinion and
belief. In the areas of baptism and feetwashing, the two sides
agreed to disagree. Otterbein baptized infants by sprinkling,
while the Mennonites baptized only believers by pouring. The
Dunkers immersed. Very early on, the United Brethren agreed to
compromise on non-essential doctrine.
Similarly, the United Brethren found no difficulty working
with fellow believers in other denominations. After all, they were

never understand the concept of withholding the church's voice
regarding social issues. As people's hearts changed, society
should also be changing. The two could not be separated.
Personal sins could not be divorced from societal sins, so they
had to be addressed together. Several examples illustrate this
point.
First, there is the issue of slavery. No greater societal sin
affected the early United States than the issue of slavery. From
an early date the United Brethren took a strong stand condemn
ing the institution. It won them few friends, especially in the
South, but the stand was taken because it was seen as the
church's role to do so. Similarly, in the early nineteenth century
the abuse of alcohol became a great social problem facing the
nation. The new availability of strong, cheap liquor made it easy
to abuse. Many individuals and families were torn apart by its
deleterious effects. The United Brethren decided that the only
way they could fight this evil among their own people was to
require its members to abstain from its use, a stand the early
founders had not required. The decision was directly related to a
problem very prevalent in their society.
Certainly the story has been frequently told of the United
Brethren opposition to secret societies, and especially the
Freemasons. The United Brethren took their strong stand
because they genuinely believed it was an anti-Christian organi
zation that was corrupting the morals and religion of the nation.
They were unconcerned about the popularity of their stand, as
long as they were convinced of its Tightness. In another arena,
and possibly somewhat surprising, many United Brethren were
early advocates for the equal rights of women. Otterbein
University in Westerville, Ohio, was only the second college in
the U.S. to admit women on an equal basis with men. And in the
suffrage movement of the early twentieth century, some United
Brethren, such as Bishop Milton Wright, actively worked for the
women's right to vote.
Of course, the issues to which the church must speak will
change in each generation. Today, many United Brethren
churches are taking strong stands on a current great societal
evil, abortion. Viewed historically, it is the type of issue United
Brethren have always joined together in opposing.
10

Conclusions
These are six historic distinctives of the Church of the United
Brethren in Christ that still have great validity and power for
today. Obviously, the particular ways in which each of these dis
tinctives have been lived out in the life of the church have
changed throughout the years. Nevertheless, there is a timelessness
to these distinctives, as well as a strong biblical basis, that
will allow them to shape the United Brethren character and
direction as a people of God into the future. Can anyone really
disagree that God will continue to use the United Brethren
church in its third century if it continues to promote radical con
version, holy living, heartfelt worship, evangelistic passion, ecu
menical spirit, and a social consciousness? In reality, this sounds
like a continuing prescription for revival.
Notes
1. See John Lawrence, The History of the Church of the United Brethren in
Christ (Dayton: United Brethren Printing Establishment, 1868), 137-8.
2. Ibid., 158-60.
3. See Otterbein's only extant sermon, "The Salvation-Bringing Incarnation
and Glorious Victory of Jesus Christ over the Devil and Death," found in
Arthur C. Core, Philip William Otterbein: Pastor, Ecumenist (Dayton: Board
of Publication, The Evangelical United Brethren Church, 1968), 85-6.
4. Henry G. Spayth, History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ
(Circleville, OH: Conference Office of the United Brethren in Christ, 1851),
41-2.
11

The 1800
Conference: Eyewitness Accounts
The following short narratives are from eyewitness accounts of
the organizing conference held at the Peter Kemp house near
Frederick, Maryland, on September 25. At this meeting the name,
Church of the United Brethren in Christ, was chosen and two
bishops were appointed, although several accounts do not even
mention these decisions. It seems that the conference was deemed
far more important in retrospect than it was by its participants at
that time.
The selections include the official Minutes of the conference, taken
by George Geeting, excerpts from the diary of Christian
Newcomer, and the account of Henry Spayth, who interviewed
participants of that meeting.
The Official Minutes
By George Geeting, Secretary
September 25, 1800, the following preachers assembled in the
house of Frederick Kemp [father of Peter Kemp] in Frederick
County, Maryland: William Otterbein, Martin Boehm, John
Hershey, Abraham Troxel, Christian Crum, Henry Crum, George
Pfrimmer, Henry Boehm, Christian Newcomer, Dietrich
Aurandt, Jacob Giesinger, George Adam Geeting, Adam Lehman.
Each person spoke of his own experience, and then declared
anew his intention with all zeal, through the help of God, to
preach untrammeled by sect to the honor of God and of men.
1. Resolved that two preachers shall go to Smoke's and investi
gate whether D. Aurandt should baptize and administer the
Lord's Supper.
2. Resolved that yearly a day shall be appointed when the unsectarian
preachers shall assemble and counsel how they may
conduct their office more and more according to the will of
God, and according to the mind of God, that the church of God
may be built up, and sinners converted, so that God in Christ
may be honored.
12

3. The meeting was opened with prayer, then a chapter read, a
short discourse delivered by Brother Otterbein, and then
closed again with prayer.
Diary of Christian Newcomer
Sept. 24, 1800. This day I left home to attend the conference.
At Middletown I found Br. Draskel, who had an appointment
there, and tarried with him. After meeting we rode home with
Br. Jacob Bowlus, and staid for the night.
25th—This morning set out early; came to Br. Peter Kemp's
where the Conference is to be held; found Father Otterbein,
Boehm, and twelve other preachers there. The Conference was
opened with singing and prayer by Otterbein and Boehm; the
former gave a powerful exhortation. Then were all the brethren
separately examined respecting their progress in the divine life,
their success and industry in the ministry.
26th—This afternoon Father Otterbein preached from Amos
4:12, Boehm spoke after him. After transacting some other busi
ness the Conference closed with prayer. Boehm, Fremmer, and
myself rode to Bovey's where father Boehm preached and we tar
ried for the night.
The Account of Henry Spayth
At this conference there being a good representation of the
Church in general, the name United Brethren, with the addi
tion, in Christ, was adopted. The appellative, United Brethren,
had characterized the Brethren as a distinct body of Christians
for a considerable time, previous to the setting of this confer
ence.
But it was suggested (and not without reason), that the name
United Brethren, when used in papers of record pertaining to
the Church, in property, bequests, legacies or otherwise, might
raise a legal inquiry as to who, or what Church was intended by
United Brethren, forasmuch as the Moravians, under Count
Zinzendorf, 1727, had formed their first society, under and by
the name United Brethren, or Unitas Fratrum. To avoid a mis
application in consequence of the similarity of the name, which
13

it was not too late to change—in Christ, was added, and since
then, has been written and known as THE CHURCH OF THE
UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST.
The next step the conference took was to elect two brethren to
the office of superintendent, or bishop, and William Otterbein
and Martin Boehm were elected.
14

Martin Boehm and the Development of the
United Brethren Church
Bernard E. Fogle
New information on Martin Boehm is scarce. The following essay
is composed of selections from Bernard Fogle's unpublished mas
ter's thesis at United Theological Seminary (1955). While it con
tains little primary research, it is probably the best biography of
Martin Boehm that exists to date. The entire thesis is on file at the
United Brethren Historical Center at Richlyn Library,
Huntington College. New research on the life and legacy of
Martin Boehm is encouraged by this Journal.
Boehm's Call
and Conversion
Martin Boehm had been well-trained in his youth in the
tenets of the Mennonite faith. This fact, coupled with the devout
spirit of his wife (Eve Steiner), would indicate that he was a
member of above average piety for that period. He was morally
good and knowingly would do no wrong. In the eyes of his neigh
bors and friends, he was a good man.
Fully contented with his brethren, and religious profes
sion, he lived blameless, that is, without sinning knowing
ly according to the light he then had, until in the 32nd year
of his age, a preacher was to be chosen in the immediate
society of which he was a member, according to the custom
of the Mennonites, that is, by lot.1
This custom of selection by lot was an expression of their poli
ty. The church government was strictly congregational, although
they were grouped together in bishops' areas. The selection of a
minister was the responsibility of the local congregation, which
chose a man from their own group without regard to preparation,
conviction, consent, or qualifications. This selection was made for
life and without the promise of any material or financial remu
neration. The congregation would determine which candidates
they thought were worthy of the ministry, which was often done
by a vote of the congregation. On the appointed day, the men who
had been selected stood before the pulpit, upon which was placed
15

a book for each candidate. The books used were to look exactly
alike. Often they were hymnals or Bibles. A slip of paper was
placed in each book; on one slip of paper was written a passage
from the book of Proverbs: "The lot is cast into the lamp, but the
whole disposal thereof is of the Lord."
The candidates would each select a book and examine the slip
of paper. The one who was the recipient of the book with the
proverb was selected minister. He had to preach for the rest of
his days whether he was qualified or not. The congregation had
to accept him because there was no recourse, except if there were
a gross misdemeanor on the part of the minister. They believed
this selection was the Lord's choice. There was no backing down
on the part of either the minister or the congregation. If it were
absolutely impossible for the minister thus chosen to serve his
people in preaching, he must rotate the position and perform
what duties his abilities would allow. At a later time an addi
tional selection would be made from another group of candidates
in the hope that Providence would make a more successful choice
if given another chance.
It was in this casting of lots that Martin Boehm was chosen
minister in 1758. Boehm felt himself ill-prepared for this task.
Spayth, who knew Boehm personally, notes that "he had neither
desire nor wish that the lot might take him...but did not feel
himself at liberty to dissent or refuse."2
According to our usage, it was not expected from me to
preach immediately thereafter, because our elder preacher
was still able to preach; but it was my duty to assist him
in preaching and exhortation as God would give me the
ability. I had been reading the Scriptures much, but now
read them still more, and with care, in order to impress
their reading on my memory, so that I might have some
thing wherewith to preach or exhort. Sunday came, the
elder brother preached, and in an attempt to follow him by
word of exhortation, I failed...I continued reading. The
next Sabbath I was requested to take part and rose up, but
could say little or nothing.3
Spayth continues to relate the events in Martin Boehm's life
that culminated in his conversion experience:
16

Some months passed in this way, but it came not. This
state began to distress me deeply. To be a preacher, and yet
have nothing to preach, or to say, but stammer out a few
words, and then be obliged to take my seat in shame and
remorse. I had faith in prayer, and prayed more fervently.
While thus engaged in prayer earnestly for aid to preach,
the thought rose up in my mind, or as though one spoke to
me, saying, "You pray for grace to teach others the way of
salvation, and you have not prayed for your own salva
tion." This thought or word did not leave me. My salvation
followed me wherever I went. I felt constrained to pray for
myself, and while praying for myself, my mind became
alarmed. I felt and saw myself a poor sinner. I was LOST.
My agony became great. I was plowing in the field, and
kneeled down at the end of the furrow to pray. The word
"lost, lost" went every round with me. Midway in the field
I could go no further, but sank behind the plow, crying,
"Lord, save, I am lost!" And again the thought or voice
said, "I am come to seek and to save that which is lost." In
a moment a stream of joy was poured over me. I praised
the Lord and left the field.4
With this newfound experience and new relationship with
God, Boehm could not do other than give witness of the experi
ence. He had often given testimonies before, but now he had a
testimony that he could not keep. It greatly touched the people,
and his wife was the first to feel the same joy that Martin was
now enjoying. His course was now plain before him. He must
lead others in finding the peace he now had, obtained only
through complete commitment to the will of God.
The Meeting at Long's Barn
The event that brought about the meeting of Martin Boehm
with Philip William Otterbein was one of the Great Meetings.
The meeting was held on the farm of Isaac Long, who lived about
six miles northeast of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In the Long fam
ily there were three brothers—Isaac, John, and Benjamin. They
had been converted at a previous meeting conducted by Boehm,
17

and showed increasing interest in the new faith found by listen
ing to the preaching of Boehm. Isaac was a warmhearted person
who was described as demonstrative. He was present at many
meetings, attending those that were held even at a great dis
tance away. His brother John was also active in this movement
of great meetings. He was instrumental in securing the presence
of the "Virginia preachers."
It was only natural that Isaac would extend an invitation to
Boehm to hold a meeting at his farm. This meeting at Isaac
Long's farm is of great importance. Not only were the followers
of Boehm there, but also parties from Lancaster, York, and
Lebanon Counties. Many of these people were of the Lutheran,
German Reformed, Mennonite, and Dunker churches. Perhaps
other groups were also represented.
Among the group from York County was Philip William
Otterbein, a minister of the York Reformed Church. It is likely
that Otterbein and Boehm had not met before, although
Otterbein had served in the Lancaster Church [German
Reformed]. The reason for Otterbein's presence at this meeting is
not known, but it could have been either of his own choosing or
by invitation from Boehm.
The barn in which the meeting was held was of rather large
size, being 108 feet long and proportionately wide. As a note of
interest, the barn in which the meeting was held was built in
1754 and is still standing.
The crowd that gathered was so large that the barn could not
accommodate all the people. An overflow meeting was held out
side in an orchard; the people outside stood in the rain as they
listened to the speaker, who was one of the "Virginia Preachers."
Boehm preached inside the barn. As he stood there the people
saw a man of moderate height, with long flowing beard, dressed
in plain, simple clothing, in the true custom of the Mennonites.
Close to him sat Otterbein. In contrast to Boehm, Otterbein was
a large man, dressed in the custom of the day and making a fine
"parsonic" appearance. Otterbein listened to Boehm, who was
the first speaker of the day for the gathering in the barn. As he
unfolded the truths of the Gospel, Otterbein was greatly moved.
He realized that he and Boehm were of one spirit.
18

When Boehm finished speaking, and before he had time to
take his seat, Otterbein rose up, and folding Boehm in his
arms, said with a loud voice, "We are brethren." At this
sight some praised God aloud, but most of the congrega
tion gave place to their feelings, weeping for joy.5
The concern of the two men was the same. Both wanted men
to turn to God and have the assurance of personal salvation
through faith in Christ. Here Otterbein had just heard Boehm
expound on this theme with great fervor. Both men, although
from different educational and church backgrounds, had dedi
cated themselves to this message. The method of the two dif
fered, but the message was the same.
The feature deserving of the most abiding remembrance in
connection with this meeting is that Otterbein, Boehm,
and the Virginia preacher present are said to have formed
a union, with some simple but definite conditions as its
basis. One of these conditions was liberty in the practical
elements of baptism. The historic mode of baptism with
the Mennonites was by pouring, and only adults were rec
ognized as proper subjects. The Reformed baptized by
sprinkling, and insisted on infant baptism. There is some
likelihood that the "Virginia preachers" baptized by
immersion.6
The First
Conferences
Following these events, Boehm spent more time in evangelis
tic and revival ministry, especially in southern Pennsylvania.
After his expulsion from the Mennonite Church, he became what
today one would call a freelance minister. On the other hand,
Otterbein accepted a call to the Evangelical Reformed Church in
Baltimore, Maryland. It was a society that had broken away
from the "mother church." Both men gained a following, not only
of converts but also of ministers who were in accord with their
evangelistic spirit in preaching personal salvation through faith.
The ministers who had come under the influence of Otterbein
and Boehm looked to them for counsel and felt that there should
be more careful guidance and cooperation between them. As a
19

esult of this feeling, a conference was called at the home of
Otterbein in Baltimore in 1789. Martin Boehm was one of the
seven present at this meeting called to consider in what manner
they might be more useful. Along with him, the following names
were recorded as being present: William Otterbein, George Adam
Geeting, Christian Newcomer, Henry Weidner, Adam Lehman,
and John Ernst. There were more men associated with this
group who were not in attendance at this meeting.
Some of the things they wanted to accomplish, besides
strengthening the bond between them, was to work out a plan to
unify the work that was being done and to plan for a larger work.
The problem of a minister's authority also faced the group.
Because some of the ministers had been converts to the move
ment of the great meetings, they had not been licensed by a rec
ognized church; such status as they had was given to them by the
individual and informal associations of the great meetings. With
this conference in 1789 there was more accountability in this
matter, along with particular assignments of work to the indi
vidual ministers. These men could consequently face the future
with more confidence and authority because they had an organi
zation behind them, informal as it was.
The second conference was held in 1791 at the home of John
Spangler, eight miles from York, Pennsylvania. Of the twentytwo
ministers recognized as being in this fellowship, the follow
ing were present for the conference: William Otterbein, Martin
Boehm, George Adam Geeting, Christian Newcomer, Adam
Lehman, John Ernst, J.G. Pfrimmer, John Neidig, and Benedict
Sanders.
The action taken at this conference seems to have been to
confirm and carry forward the arrangements and program
entered upon at the 1789 conference. There was nothing new
undertaken at this time. There are several new names that
appeal on the roster of members; this fact would seem to indicate
that there had been a period of time spent in examinations of
these men and their faith, as well as a re-examination of the old
members. This was a common procedure at later conferences and
most likely had its origins during this period.
20

Boehm the Itinerant Evangelist
Conferences were not held every year, but there were gather
ings at great meetings, which were not called conferences. One of
these meeting was again held at Isaac Long's in June, 1791, at
which Boehm was present, along with Newcomer. Otterbein was
not at this meeting.
During this period of Boehm's ministry, he traveled exten
sively through southern Pennsylvania and occasionally in
Virginia. Because he had no pastoral care of any one church he
could go as he pleased, although much of his revival work was
done among the Mennonites. Otterbein, on the other hand, was
pastor of a church, which limited him to some extent in his trav
el. His influence was mostly carried on by his devoted ministeri
al followers, such as Geeting, Newcomer, and others who gath
ered around him.
It is at this point that we realize the importance of each of
these two men in the evangelistic movement among the Germans
in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. Otterbein, the scholar,
was the organizer, while Martin Boehm was the preacher.
It is interesting to note that most of the revival influence east
of the Susquehanna River was left almost entirely in the hands
of Boehm. Otterbein probably did not enter this area of
Pennsylvania more than twice after he left Lancaster County as
a minister of the Reformed Church. One appearance was at the
Long Meeting in 1767, at which time he met Martin Boehm; the
other time that he went to this area was to get his bride. On April
19, 1762, Otterbein was married to Miss Susan LeRoy in
Lancaster. There are no records that he made trips to this area
after these two.
There is little known of the extent of Boehm's preaching and
travel at this time except for that which is recorded in
Newcomer's Journal. Of course, they only show the events in
which Boehm was a companion of Newcomer and do not indicate
travel or meetings held in which Newcomer was not one of the
participants.
Newcomer recorded several references to Boehm in his
Journal during 1796.
21

This forenoon Br. Geeting preached from Psalm 47; in the
afternoon, Br. Boehm gave an interesting discourse from
these words: "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save
that which is lost."7
This meeting is probably one held at the home of "Br.
Draksel's," which convened on April 30 and was a quarterly
meeting. This discourse of Boehm's took place the second day of
the meeting. The men then traveled to Swatara on the third day
and arrived at Shamokin that evening. On the fourth of May,
they were at Sunbury, and on the sixth at Buffalo Valley.
Whether Boehm was with the group that made the trip is not
certain, but Newcomer says, "we arrived." Of course, the "we"
could refer to just Newcomer and Geeting, since the latter was
also at the meeting.
May 4th—This meeting we crossed the Schuykill River.
Brother Boehm, Crum, and two more were in company. We
all staid for the night with Brother John H. in Springfield.8
May 19th—This morning I enjoy bodily health, but am
rather poor in the spirit. O Lord, revive thy work in my
pour soul! Today I had an appointment to preach at
Brother Martin Boehm's.9
Following this meeting with Boehm, a three-day meeting was
held at Brother Abraham Draksel's, where several men spoke.
Boehm is not mentioned by name as one of the speakers, but he
could have been one of the participants. This was followed by a
sacramental meeting.
Sunday 28th—Before day this morning, I received a power
ful blessing at the hand of God. I could not remain any
longer in bed, but arose, praising and shouting, giving
glory to God for all his mercies and compassions to unwor
thy me. Br. Boehm preached the first service this forenoon;
Br. Crum followed; in the afternoon I spoke from Psalm 2:
v 5 to 8; in the evening we celebrated the dying love of
Jesus by partaking of the Lord's Supper.»o
This meeting was held at Martin Krider's, near Lebanon,
Pennsylvania.
22

October 14th—This day a three days' meeting commenced
at Bro. Martin Boehm's.
16th—Today the meeting was brought to a close; the best
wine had been withheld unto the last.11
In June of 1798 Newcomer tells us visiting in the home of
Martin Boehm's son, Jacob, who lived in the vicinity of
Newcomer's home place.
6th—This day I preached in Strasburg, at the house of A.K.,
a justice of the peace, a very intelligent man. The words of
my text were from Psalm 39: v. 5 to 9; from thence I rode
home with Br. Martin Boehm. After family prayers, when
we were about to retire to bed, a son of Br. Boehm's, who
lives about nine miles distant, arrived at the house of his
parents. He had lately embraced religion, had found the
pearl of great price, was yet in his first love, of course very
happy, so much so, that he expressed himself in extacy of
his enjoying heaven and the smiles of his Savior and
Redeemer here on earth. His mother, Sister Boehm, was so
rejoiced at the happiness of her youngest son, that she
could not help shouting and praising God for the blessings;
the father also got happy , and so we had a blessed time of
it, till after midnight; glory of God—0 that many children
may be the cause of such joy to their parents.12
The references to Boehm continue throughout 1799. On May
21, the group began meeting at John Zeller's. As time passed, the
attendance and results increased.
22nd—This day a great multitude of people had assembled;
Br. Boehm spoke with uncommon power.13
The next fellowship with Boehm was a meeting held at Isaac
Long's place:
June 1st—Today a sacramental meeting commenced at Br.
Isaac Long's; on our arrival at the place appointed we
found Brs. Boehm, Fremmer, Neidig, Grosh, Kreider, and
Shuey. Br. Fremmer commenced the meeting, other
brethren spoke after him. At night we had a happy meet
ing at Abr. Hershey's; the friends were revived. Many were
23

made so happy in the Lord that they shouted for joy, and
gave praises to God that ever the Lord Jesus Christ came
into the world to save sinners.
Sunday 2nd—This morning we had a Love Feast; it was
truly a feast full of love and liberty. Praise the Lord. The
congregation was very numerous. I preached
first...Brother Boehm followed me. After preaching, we
administered the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Many
came with tears to the Lord's table.14
On October 9, a great meeting was held at a place called the
Church of Peace. Boehm was there, along with many of the men
so far mentioned in those gatherings. Boehm took his turn at
preaching several times and Newcomer said Boehm spoke "with
grace and power." Boehm, along with Geeting, distributed the
elements for the sacramental part of the meeting.^
In May of 1800, Boehm again was a companion at several
meetings at the home of John G. Fremmer on May 21, where
thirty children were under religious instruction. Boehm
preached on the gathering. On May 22, a meeting was held at
Neidig's, where again Boehm preached with power.
Sunday 25th—This morning Br. Boehm preached the first
discourse with great power...Before the close of the meet
ing several young persons of both sexes were brought
under conviction, crying aloud, with streaming eyes, for
mercy.
26th—Today Br. Boehm preached again, before the sacra
ment, on the sufferings and death of our Lord Jesus
Christ, with extraordinary power.16
In August and September, Boehm traveled through Maryland
and Virginia. Concerning this trip Newcomer makes numerous
entries in his Journal, including the many speaking engage
ments all through the Shenandoah Valley at Woodstock, Augusta
County, and Staunton, and many other smaller communities.
Boehm spoke at most of the places mentioned; his son Henry
usually followed him in the English language. Some of the meet
ings were held in the Methodist meeting houses, such as the one
24

held on the return trip in Winchester on the 21st. Since a meet
ing was soon to be held at Peter Kemp's farm near Frederick,
Maryland, the meetings referenced are to locations close to that
destination.
After the
1800 Conference
A conference was held every year following 1800. The confer
ences held up to the death of Martin Boehm were held at the fol
lowing locations:
1801—At the home of Peter Kemp, Frederick County, Maryland;
1802—At Cronise's, Frederick County, Maryland;
1803—At David Snyder's, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania;
1804—At David Snyder's, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania;
1805—At the home of Christian Newcomer, Washington County,
Maryland;
1806—At Lorenz Eberhart's, Middletown, Maryland;
1807—At Christian Heir's, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania;
1808—At Abraham Niswander's in Virginia;
1809—At Christian Herr's, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania;
1810—At John Chronise's, Frederick County, Maryland;
1811—At Joseph Gnogo's, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
According to the Minutes kept by Geeting, Martin Boehm
attended the conferences of 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1807,
and 1809. The activities at these conferences consisted mostly of
examination of the ministers. Each told of his condition and
declared how he stood in religion and how it was with him in
preaching.
There were resolutions recommending that the new minis
ters be licensed and given authority to baptize, administer the
Lord's Supper, and to perform marriages. Ministers were also
assigned to their fields of labor, and the minister's pay was estab
lished if he served full-time on his circuit.
The leadership for these conferences rested in both Boehm
and Otterbein. Several times Otterbein was not able to attend
the meeting so Boehm presided alone. Such were the conferences
of 1804, 1807, and 1809. At the conferences of 1806, 1808, 1810,
25

and 1811, neither Boehm nor Otterbein attended. In these situa
tions the leadership seemed to rest upon Geeting and Newcomer,
although there is no evidence they were elected bishops or super
intendents. The Minutes were signed by these two men.
Boehm, along with Otterbein, was re-elected Superintendent
at the conference of 1805. Evidently this election should have
taken place in 1804, but because of much sickness and death,
only a few men were present, and aside from counseling togeth
er, they postponed any action until the following conference.
Boehm was assigned by the conference of 1803 to place the
preachers in Pennsylvania. Although no statement is made to
this effect, it would seem that this was the beginning of supervi
sion of districts by the bishops.
Boehm had many associations with fellow laborers of the
Church. Not only did he meet them at the conferences, but also
at the great meetings that the group continued to hold in many
locales. His home was a frequent stopping place for Newcomer
and other ministers traveling the circuits. In his travels he, too,
reached into the circuits and homes of Geeting and Newcomer
and many other men. He made trips to Baltimore and often his
voice resounded within the walls of Otterbein's church.
Some would think it strange that Boehm did not attend all of
the conferences in those first years of the denomination. If one
stops to consider his age, that observation alone would explain
his behavior. Born in 1725, at the time of the 1800 Conference
Boehm was seventy-five years of age. When considered in light of
the distances he traveled and the forms of transportation avail
able to him, it is remarkable that he could enjoy as much fellow
ship with the group as he did.
Death Comes to Martin Boehm
Time and work exacted their toll on Martin Boehm. He had
lived a vigorous and active life. On March 23, 1812, Martin
Boehm drew his last breath and fell asleep in the Lord. He was
aged eighty-six years, three months, and eleven days.
For a man of his age, he had enjoyed a remarkable state of
health; even up until a few days before his death he had been
able to ride a short distance. The length of his illness was very
26

short, but when death came, Martin Boehm was ready. He did
not suffer much pain; life just gradually left him. No one thought
that he was near death when it did take him. He had asked to be
raised up in his bed so that he could sing and pray. He evidently
believed that this would be his last opportunity to do those
things. When he had finished praying, he asked to be laid back
on the pillow. With that, he quietly slipped from this earth to be
with his Maker.
His son Henry was not at home when death came to his
father. He was in Leesburg, Virginia, attending a conference
with Bishop Francis Asbury of the Methodists. The following is
Henry Boehm's account of the conversation and thinking of
Asbury concerning Martin Boehm and the trip to Boehm's home
after that meeting.
Bishop Asbury said to me, "Henry, as soon as conference
adjourns you must have the horses ready and we must go
right to your father's." I reminded him of appointments he
had sent on to Baltimore and through the eastern shore of
Maryland. He said, "Never mind, we can get them filled; I
tell you we must go right to your father's." We were then
one hundred miles distant.
The reason for the sudden changes in plans I believed to
be, the bishop had a presentiment or an impression that
my father was dead. How else could we account for his
abandoning a long list of appointments, changing his
entire route, and hastening on to my father's?
When we reached Samuel Brinkley's, who lived about a
mile from our old homestead, the mystery was solved;
there we heard my father was dead. The aged Asbury
wept, and I felt sad at the thought I should see him no
more.17
The day after their arrival, on Sunday, April 5, 1812, Bishop
Asbury conducted services for a large gathering of people. He
preached the funeral service of Martin Boehm. In it, he spoke of
the character of Boehm's life as he knew it.
27

Martin Boehm was plain in dress and manners. When age
had stamped its impress of reverence upon him, he filled
the mind with the noble idea of the patriarch. At the head
of a family, a father, a neighbor, a friend, a companion, the
prominent feature of his character 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^
Boehm loved people, and in his simple, humble way could
reach their very hearts with the message of the Gospel he had to
share with them.
Boehm had difficult days. He spent many hours in agony
until he found salvation through Christ. Once he had this expe
rience, he could not rest, but was compelled to go far and wide,
telling others. His greatest joy was to see a lost soul saved.
It was in the role of preacher that Boehm is best remembered.
He had his experiences in organization, but these were minor
compared to the expounding of the Word. He left the details of
the organization of the United Brethren in Christ to other men,
such as Otterbein and Newcomer. This does not detract from his
greatness. Instead, it demonstrates to the Church that each has
his or her own special gifts, and when they are used in team
work, a great organization can result from it. Boehm was a lead
ing spirit in the team and deserves to be honored as the cofounder
of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ.
Notes
1. Henry G. Spayth, History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ
(Circleville, OH: Church of the United Brethren in Christ, 1851), 27.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid, 27-29.
4. Ibid., 29-30.
5. Ibid., 41.
6. A.W. Drury, History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton:
The Otterbein Press, 1924), 102.
28

7. Christian Newcomer, Life and Journal of the Rev'd. Christian Newcomer,
Late Bishop of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. Trans. John Hildt
(Hagerstown, MD: W. Kapp. 1834), 21.
8. Ibid., 26.
9. Ibid., 27.
10. Ibid., 27-8.
11. Ibid., 32.
12. Ibid., 40.
13. Ibid., 54.
14. Ibid., 55.
15. Ibid., 63.
16. Ibid., 69.
17. Henry Boehm, Reminiscences, Historical and Biographical, of Sixty-Four
Years in the Ministry (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1866), 372.
18. Ibid., 373. Quoted from Asbury's Journal.
29

Democratization, Revivalism, and Reform:
The United Brethren in the Antebellum Era
Anthony L. Blair
It is difficult to remember today that the United Brethren were
once fairly radical in their attempts to transform culture and
society. In the period before the Civil War, they took on a variety
of social issues, including alcohol, Masonry, and slavery, and sig
nificantly influenced public debate. This essay examines the rea
sons for their pre-war radicalism as well as the forms it took.
Anthony Blair is Assistant Professor of Management at Eastern
College, Superintendent of Church Planting for the MidAtlantic
Conference of the United Brethren Church, and Senior Pastor of
GraceNow! Ministries, a church plant in the Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, area. He earned a Ph.D. in History from Temple
University. He also serves as editor of this Journal.
Democratization and Revivalism
Two forces, separate but with a common origin, came togeth
er, grew stronger because of the presence of the other, but never
lost their distinct identity. This is how one could describe the
interplay of revivalism and "democratization" in American soci
ety and religion in the decades prior to the Civil War. These two
forces shared a common origin—American individualism—and
expressed themselves in mutually complementary fashion;
revivalism lent an impetus to popular democracy and the move
ment characterized by Jacksonian political expression brought
democratic ideals within the mainstream of Christian religion.
Yet both revivalism and democratization are historically distinct
movements; not all who experienced one necessarily experienced
the other.
Nathan Hatch identifies democratization as a natural by
product of the American Revolution. Democratization called into
question both societal and religious authorities and seemed at
times to challenge the very structure of society. "People con
fronted new kinds of issues: common folk not respecting their
betters, organized factions speaking and writing against civil
30

authority, the uncoupling of church and state, and the abandon
ment of settled communities in droves by people seeking a stake
in the back country."1 The religious communities that flourished
in this environment were quite different from those that had
dominated the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the
colonies. Instead of Anglicans, Congregationalists, and
Presbyterians, Hatch focuses on the emerging Methodist,
Baptist, Disciples, African, and Mormon movements.
These new denominations almost exploded in numbers, as
they skillfully combined the democratic elements of society with
the message of salvation. Hatch demonstrates that the key to
growth was not a shared theology—the growing churches dis
agreed strongly on theological issues. Nor was it even a democ
ratic authority structure—the Methodists would not ordain une
ducated laymen (unlike the Baptists); the Disciples were orga
nized under the strong charismatic leadership of Barton Stone;
and the Mormons instituted a very hierarchical structure.
Instead, the key to growth was the degree to which laity influ
enced in these movements. Not only were they permitted to par
ticipate in the decision-making processes, but also the spiritual
experience of the layperson was considered as authoritative as
that of a clergyman. Religion became the possession of the com
mon person.2
The democratization of American religious movements also
contributed to a new outbreak of revivalism during this same
period.
Both democratization and revivalism had their origins in
individualism. Nineteenth-century revivalism was individualis
tic to the point of almost contradicting the emphasis of medieval
spirituality—the building of communities of faith for the purpose
of corporate and personal holiness. Nineteenth-century evangel
ical spirituality stressed the personal conversion and faith of the
individual, although such conversions would result in social
reform movements that would seek to benefit the Church and
society as a whole.
The focus of the revivalist message was, however, the person
al relationship of each individual with one's God. The call of the
evangelist was to humble confession of one's sins,3 honest
acknowledgement of one's need for a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and sincere belief in the
31

grace of God for salvation. The emphasis was, of course, on the
personal, vertical relationship between the individual and his
God. The call was not to the Church or a community of faith, as
earlier evangelists had preached, although the redeemed indi
vidual was expected to be incorporated within a religious body in
due time.
This revivalistic message was epitomized perhaps by the
career of Charles Grandison Finney, whose "new measures"
brought scientific techniques to evangelism and made him a spir
itual father of such modern evangelists as Billy Graham. He
symbolizes the movement better than any other person, for he
combines within himself its primary influences.4 Finney was
himself the product of a revival movement in the "burnt-over"
district of western New York about two decades after the Second
Great Awakening began in campmeetings in Cane Ridge,
Kentucky. And he was a famous but small part of a large move
ment that was carried along largely by the efforts of anonymous,
Westward-looking laity.5
William McLoughlin has identified the Second Great
Awakening as one of five periods of intense religious revivalism
in American history that were accompanied by massive social
reform movements. (A recent study by Robert Fogel echoes this
understanding of the Second Awakening, although Fogel identi
fies only one, not two, prior "awakenings."6) Although he detects
several strains in the Awakening, much attention is paid to "per
fectionism" as the distinguishing social characteristic of revival
ist preachers like Finney. Finney believed that "the reborn
became totally unselfish or totally altruistic...This meant that
the regenerate man was committed to sacrificing his own plea
sures in order to advance God's Kingdom on earth."7 But where
as other groups focused their perfectionism on the building of
Utopian communities, or on a postmillennial eschatology,8
Finney believed that society must be changed by converting the
individual. Thus, individualism fed a revivalism that resulted,
almost contradictorily, in social reform.
32

The United Brethren
The Baptists and the Methodists were the primary beneficia
ries of revivalistic Christianity, as their denominations quickly
overtook all others to become the predominant religious bodies of
the American nineteenth century.
However, Protestant churches
from all theological persuasions felt the effects of a movement
that emphasized the spirituality of the layperson. One group of
ethnic churches that has been largely overlooked in the research
of the revivalistic movement is the German-American denomi
nations.
These were larger than is commonly known during the pre-
War decades,
perhaps because they were experiencing a linguis
tic and cultural transition from German to English. In his semi
nal work on pre-War social reform, Timothy Smith compiled
some membership statistics for these groups.9 In 1855,
Methodists North and South numbered about 1.4 million,
Baptists North and South about 800,000, and Disciples 170,000.
Compared to these English-speaking groups,
the Lutherans (pri
marily German) totaled 200,000, German Reformed 75,000, and
United Brethren 67,000.10 Smaller German groups (Mennonites,
Moravians, Church of the Brethren, etc.) numbered about
40,000. While the numbers are clearly estimates,11 it can safely
be said that German denominations together accounted for
almost 400,000 people, or about one-tenth the total church mem
bership of 1855.
The German-American denominations can be broadly divided
into two groups—those with a strong Pietistic-Revivalist her
itage and those without. Those without would include the largest
German denominations—the Lutheran and German Reformed.12
The other groups were small, somewhat isolated, and located pri
marily in Pennsylvania. The notable exception to this character
ization is the United Brethren.13 They were the largest of these
groups, were scattered from Pennsylvania to Illinois, and were
most susceptible to the cultural pressures to become English. Yet
they were small enough to remain largely monolithic in theolog
ical emphases, and continued to possess an unmistakable
revivalistic identity.
33

This identity was fostered by their origins. The United
Brethren began as a revivalist movement within German
Reformed and German Mennonite communities in Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Virginia. Organizers Philip William Otterbein
(1726-1813) of the Reformed Church and Martin Boehm (1725-
1812) of the Mennonite Church were closely associated with
Francis Asbury and the emerging American Methodist movement
at the end of the eighteenth century. In fact, there was very little
difference in organization, function, or theology among the two
groups. During the first several decades of the nineteenth centu
ry, there were repeated calls to merge the two groups, calls which
went unheeded primarily because of language barriers and the
lack of sufficient organization among the United Brethren.
Like John Wesley and the Methodists, Otterbein and Boehm
never intended to start another church. Neither left his church
voluntarily. Otterbein was associated with the German Reformed
until his death, although the relationship he (and his congrega
tion in Baltimore) maintained with that Church was tenuous at
best. Boehm was dismissed from the Mennonite Church, largely
because of misunderstandings arising from his revivalistic
preaching and associations. Yet denominational labels were fluid
enough that, while still continuing as a United Brethren bishop,
Boehm joined a Methodist class that met on his property.
Otterbein and Boehm were first elected bishops or superin
tendents in 1800. The first true organizational meeting had
occurred eleven years earlier, when Otterbein, Boehm, and a
group of associated ministers formed an accountability structure.
After the death of both leaders, the younger generation adopted
in 1815 a Constitution, a Confession of Faith, and a Discipline.
They also chose new leaders to carry on the work, thereby guar
anteeing the survival of the movement beyond the lifetime of its
founders.14
Thus, the United Brethren were revivalistic in origin and
structure. This pattern continued through the Civil War years
into the present. The evidence for this is found most easily in The
Religious Telescope, the United Brethren periodical. The
Telescope featured a regular column called "Revival Intelligence,"
an update on revivals taking place in various United Brethren
communities. The Telescope also regularly featured sermons and
34

articles by Charles Finney and other evangelists.15 But the
revivalistic atmosphere invaded the entire church—the content
of sermons, the training of ministers, the impetus for missionary
activity, and the rapid Westward spread of the denomination.
During this time the church was also heavily influenced by
the forces of American democratization. This was made possible
by a shift in language from predominantly German to predomi
nantly English. In 1817, the minutes of General Conference were
written in German and measures were taken that 300 copies of
the Book of Discipline were printed in German and 100 in
English. In 1825, the denomination was sufficiently mixed to
require two secretaries at General Conference—one for each lan
guage. By 1837, the tide had turned. That year, the church need
ed 5780 English Disciplines but only 1970 German, and a minis
ter was appointed to translate the Discipline into German. In
1841, General Conference established a German printing press
in Baltimore to counterbalance the English one in Ohio. The
German press was to receive one-third of the denomination's
printing revenues. The General Conference of 1853 recognized
the minority status of its German members by creating separate
German conferences in the Midwest.16 In 1861, the Conference
elected bishops by language—three English, one German.
The change in language meant that United Brethren mem
bers were able to participate in broader cultural movements than
had been hitherto possible. It also meant that they drew freely
on American, rather than German, political and cultural ideals.
And one of these ideals was American democracy, as understood
in the early nineteenth century. This is seen as early as the sec
ond issue of The Religious Telescope, which contained a
"Declaration of Rights:"
As all men are essentially equal in their rights, wants,
and interests, it follows then this, that representative
government is the only legitimate human rule, to which
any people can submit. It is the only kind of government
that can possibly reconcile in any consistent way, the
claims of authority with the advantages of liberty.
A pre
scriptive legitimate body, making laws without the
knowledge or consent of the people to be governed by
them is despotism.17
35

Social Reform
In addition to proclaiming representative government as the
"only legitimate human rule," were the United Brethren actively
involved in influencing that government, and the society it gov
erned, on issues of social reform? This is the crux of this study. A
generation ago, Timothy Smith argued cogently that the social
reform movements of the nineteenth century grew out of a
revivalistic theology. He examined the structure of American
Protestantism, its view of personal and societal sanctification,
and its eschatology, and concluded that these factors caused the
mainline Protestant churches to adopt an aggressive campaign
for societal reform. Smith particularly investigated the abolition
movement and efforts to assist the poor, but acknowledged that
other movements fit the general pattern.
Smith's thesis has been largely accepted since that time. But
his efforts were concentrated on the churches of mainline
Protestantism. The responsiveness of minority ethnic denomina
tions to these same influences has been largely unexamined
(except perhaps in the case of the Catholic churches in America).
How responsive were the German denominations to these influ
ences? And, if the United Brethren are to be perceived as some
what representative of the German revivalistic denominations,
how responsive were the United Brethren to these same influ
ences? Did the United Brethren revivalist mentality result in
social reform movements? Were the United Brethren sufficiently
anglicized by this time to experience the "democratization" nec
essary for involvement in these movements?
To answer these questions, three specific reform issues were
examined—slavery, temperance, and freemasonry. These were
chosen because of their prominence during this time period. The
evidence reveals that the United Brethren were very active in all
three reform movements at a very early period. It also reveals a
consistent three-step progression of involvement, from legislat
ing membership standards to participation in larger issue-ori
ented organizations (such as temperance or abolitionist societies)
to active political involvement.
The evidence amassed here is gathered primarily from two
sources—General Conference decisions and Religious Telegraph
36

articles. General Conference was a quadrennial gathering of
elected ministerial representatives for the purpose of revising
church structure and polity and electing church leaders. It was
the highest authority of the denomination. The Religious
Telegraph was the official organ of the denomination, published
intermittently from December 31, 1834. Although it is perhaps
more representative of the opinions of church leaders than of
United Brethren laity, the news articles, letters to the editors,
and sermons portray a church that was largely unanimous in its
positions on these issues. Sampling from successive decades
allows for a snapshot perspective of the progression of involve
ment alluded to above.
Slavery
In 1821, the General Conference of the Church of the United
Brethren in Christ adopted the following resolution:
Resolved, that in no sense of the word shall slavery in
whatsoever form it may escist [sic], be tolerated in our
church, and that no slaveholder, making application for
membership, shall be received, and that if any member
be found to possess slaves, he (or she) cannot remain a
member, unless he (or she) manumit his (or her) slaves
as soon as notified to by the annual Conference.18
From the first time United Brethren leaders addressed the
issue of slavery, they stood in opposition to it. The first step in
asserting that stand was to legislate behavior for the members of
the denomination, as above. In 1825, provision was made for the
gradual manumission of slaves to ease the financial hardship of
the owner, but selling slaves was strongly prohibited, even when
the announced intention was to cease slaveholding.19
An unsuccessful draft for a new Constitution in 1837 did not
address the subject of slavery. The successful draft, adopted in
1841, directed that "there shall be no connection with secret com
binations, nor shall involuntary servitude be tolerated in any
way" (Article II, Section 7). This is the Constitution still in force
in the United Brethren Church. There were occasional disagree
ments on this stance. The Auglaize Conference in Ohio experi-
37

enced an actual schism over the issue. A few ministers had their
licenses revoked for their pro-slavery positions. The Religious
Telescope was even burned in protest on a few occasions.
However, these were rare occurrences, and most discussions
after this point did not center on the morality of slavery, but
rather on the interpretation of this stance in a variety of ambigu
ous contexts in the slave-holding states.20
In 1852, the Virginia Conference quarreled over whether it
was legitimate to hire a slave owned by someone else and asked
for interpretation.21 General Conference took up the debate the
following year, but seems to have left the question unanswered.
A measure to prohibit selling grain to, or purchasing grain from,
a slaveholder and another measure to prohibit the purchase of
any article from a slaveholder were both defeated. A Virginia del
egate gave a moving argument for the occasional need to pur
chase a slave for reasons of mercy. The General Conference voted
to not alter its previous stance on slavery.22 The prohibition
against slavery remained unchanged in the Discipline until
1945, when it was replaced by a position on race relations.
The United Brethren were not long satisfied to deal with
slavery as solely a membership issue in their own ranks. The
church was rapidly absorbing the democratic ideals of society
and applying them to moral issues. A Religious Telescope article
from 1835 made clear the connection between democratization
and slavery:
If we seriously investigate the principles of our republi
can institutions, we shall at once discover, that all our
just claims to the character of freemen are based on the
previous acknowledgement of an equality of rights....We
are prepared to say, that we shall never fully realize
those blessings which were intended for us by those who
achieved our independence, until slavery, whatever may
be its character or name, is universally done away; nor
should we boast of our liberty, until our fellow-beings
who tread our soil, are emancipated from unholy
bondage.23
The Church had clearly sided with those urging immediate
emancipation against gradual emancipation,
and was encourag-
38

ing its members to be involved in broader movements. An article
reprinted in the Telescope argues that there is "just the same
reason for the system of action pursued by the abolition soci
ety... that there is for the system of the temperance society with
regard to the curse of ardent spirits."24
That same year an appeal was distributed to the members of
the New England and New Hampshire Conferences of the
United Methodist Church, urging them to adopt a policy against
slavery.25 John Lawrence, editor of the Telescope, had stronger
words for churches that permitted slavery. He published a 224-
page book entitled The Slavery Question, in which he accused
some churches of being apologists for human bondage and
oppression. His argument echoed of Marxism in his call for the
workingmen of the nation to unite to defeat slavery.26
From interfering with the stands of other churches and
espousing abolition societies, an advance to direct political
involvement did not require a huge leap. Political involvement
increased as time passed. By 1845, the Telescope was comment
ing on the apparent pro-slavery composition of President Polk's
Cabinet—four from slave states, two from free states. Political
updates became part of the regular fare of United Brethren read
ers:
Everything indicates the rapid progress of our
cause....Politicians gave it great prominence in the
recent canvass—between sixty and seventy thousand
votes maintained at the polls their fidelity to the cause of
the Slave—the Supreme Court has published its deci
sion, freeing slaves taken from one county to the other in
the District of Columbia—the odious Gag rule has been
repealed—our petitions have been referred to the proper
committees—in Congress, slave-holding politicians have
lowered their tone.27
The pressure to become politically active in the movement
must have been great in United Brethren communities. One
member wrote a letter to the editor, complaining that "we are
sometimes called slaveholders in principle...by members of our
own Church. And why all this? Because we do not attach our
selves to the Abolitionists to carry out the political measures of
39

that party, as some of our ministers and members have seen fit
to
do."28
Until the time of the Civil War, the United Brethren in Christ
had been ardently pacifistic. That stance changed when the war
became a war against slavery. The United Brethren were fanat
ical Union supporters. Western College, a United Brethren
school in Iowa, had a higher percentage of students enrolled in
the Union Army than any school in the nation. And Lewis Davis,
the president of Otterbein University, another United Brethren
institution, had a station of the "underground railroad" in his
home.29 Many ministers, including some from Virginia, volun
teered for the Union Army. At least three United Brethren min
isters in Virginia were arrested for refusing to take an oath of
allegiance to the Confederacy. Bishop Jacob Markwood was
forced to flee the state when a reward was placed upon his
head.30
Thus, it is seen that the Church of the United Brethren in
Christ was adamantly on the side of anti-slavery forces for what
its leaders perceived as both legitimate Christian and democrat
ic reasons. The Church promulgated its anti-slavery position by
requiring it of its members, then by encouraging societal involve
ment in anti-slavery movements, then by endorsing direct polit
ical and even military involvement in the cause of emancipation.
Temperance
The temperance movement in the United Brethren Church
began by perhaps asking too much. A preliminary Discipline
written in 1814 included this prohibition—"Every member shall
abstain from strong drink, and use it only on necessity as medi
cine." The following year, when a complete book of Discipline was
compiled for the first time, this section was omitted.31
The issue was not revived again until 1833, when General
Conference directed its ministers to cease the "distillation or
vending of ardent spirits," but said nothing about using alcohol,
either medicinally or recreationally.32 It also made no mention of
the use of alcohol by laity.
They were addressed four years later
in a General Conference circular that warned against drunken
ness and of engaging in business with alcohol, but made no pro-
40

hibitions, choosing "to advise, rather than legislate on this sub
ject.'^
Legislation was, however, right around the corner. In 1841, a
General Conference delegate moved that the article on making
and selling alcohol "be so altered and amended as to embrace lay
members." There was discussion on the issue, but the majority
adopted the motion. The change was reflected in the 1841
Discipline. A proviso added, "This rule shall not be so construed
as to prevent Druggists and others from vending for Mechanical
or Medicinal purposes."
While the production of alcohol had been effectively outlawed,
its use had not been addressed since the 1814 Conference. In
1845 a minority of the delegates at General Conference voted
against retaining the 1841 stance on alcohol. They were not
imbibers; on the contrary, they did not believe the position to be
strong enough since it did not prohibit use. They were to win
their battle four years later. The 1849 General Conference
directed that "distilling, vending, and use of ardent spirits as a
beverage shall hereafter be forbidden through our Society." The
previous sanction of losing one's membership if found in viola
tion was retained. Total abstinence by all members is the posi
tion still held by the Church of the United Brethren in Christ.
Although total abstinence was not enjoined until 1849, there
had been participation in temperance societies and the temper
ance movement as a whole for some time. The Religious
Telescope began publication on the last day of 1834, and its first
issues addressed temperance more than any other topic. A rec
ommendation of temperance societies was published in the third
issue—"The Temperance Society is a project of benevolence,
designed to induce men, women, and children to practice selfdenial,
and to register the names of such as will consent to prac
tice that self-denial, so far as to abandon it forever."34
It is clear that at this point the temperance movement had as
its goal the voluntary abstinence of individuals from alcoholic
beverages. The Telescope would carry annual reports from tem
perance societies, in which the movement's leaders would boast
of how many distilleries were stopped, how many merchants
refused to deal in alcohol, and how many drunkards became tem
perate. However, the seeds for political involvement, at least
41

among the United Brethren, were already present. An 1835 arti
cle argued that "he is in error in supposing that a Christian may
not be a politician, or that a politician cannot be a
Christian....The cause of temperance is the cause of the moral
ist—and at the same time is essential to good government and a
healthy condition of the body politic."35
By 1855, the Telescope was advocating legislation for prohibi
tion and even advocating some of the tactics of renowned tem
perance advocate Carry Nation, if necessary. The periodical
recorded approvingly an amusing incident in Ohio, in which a
group of ladies formed a temperance group called the "Mt.
Pleasant Phalanx::"
Its object was to put down the sale and use of ardent
spirits—First, by moral suasion; Secondly, by law; and
thirdly, if need be, by physical force....On yesterday
morning, at eight o'clock, the ladies (having been
informed that a new house of drunkenness was about to
be opened in our village) assembled together and pro
ceeded to the place of concealment, and bursted [sic] in
the heads of barrels and kegs, until all was spilt—wine,
brandy, beer and cider, all in one pool, until it ran into
their shoes. A bystander observed afterwards, that the
only chance now for liquor, was to squeeze it out of the
ladies' stockings. Mt. Pleasant shall be free, by the
strength of God.36
Legislation primarily concerned various state efforts modeled
after Maine's edict of total prohibition in 1851. Although there
were no United Brethren churches in Maine, Indiana was one
state in which the United Brethren had a significant presence.
The Indiana legislature passed a similar piece of legislation in
1855, causing howls of approval from the Telescope: "The friends
of temperance in that state are greatly rejoiced at this triumph.
We hope now that the law will be enforced and that no judicial
meddling about 'constitutionality' will be allowed to cripple the
enactment. The temperance car is moving."37
Following the Civil War, the temperance movement lost
steam momentarily. Only Maine remained "dry" by 1868. But
the United Brethren Church did not change its stand. Rather,
42

Otterbein University and other schools became centers for the
temperance movement, and many United Brethren individuals
joined in the political efforts to regain lost territory. A United
Brethren college president, Henry A. Thompson, was the
Prohibition Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1880.38
As with the abolitionist movement, the United Brethren fol
lowed the temperance path in a three-step process. They tight
ened membership standards, urged participation in larger move
ments, and then even advocated political involvement. It was a
decided transformation from the days of being a small, over
looked ethnic
minority.
Freemasonry
In 1826, a Freemason by the name of William Morgan was
abducted and drowned in New York State by brother Masons.
His fate was the direct consequence of his vow to publish the
secret rites of the Lodge. Morgan's story touched off a firestorm
of protest against not only the Masons, but also other secret soci
eties. The United Brethren Church contributed to this firestorm.
The storm was eventually to split the Church in 1889.
Why did the United Brethren, among others, object so strong
ly to secret societies? John Lawrence, sometime editor of The
Religious Telescope and United Brethren gadfly, wrote a book on
the subject in 1852. In Plain Thoughts on Secret Societies,
Lawrence echoed that common argument that secret societies
were anti-democratic in an egalitarian age: "Secret societies give
to one class of men an advantage over other men, which an hon
est man and Christian does not want." Furthermore, every
"republican" would agree that "all good citizens should enjoy
equal rights, and that no set of citizens should organize them
selves into a society which gives them power, and bad men in
that organization power, to take advantage of their fellow-citi
zens."39
Even in the church, Lawrence pleaded, democratic, egalitari
an relationships should be paramount. "Secret societies estab
lish a bond of union and brotherhood not recognized in the
Scriptures, and which conflicts with and annuls the bond of
union and communion established by God." A Mason claims a
43

higher responsibility to his lodge brothers than to his brothers in
Christ. "A Christian Mason is required to regard, not his broth
er in Christ, as a member of the household of the faithful, to
whom he- is especially bound to do good, but his brother in the
secret lodge of which Christ is not head."40 It is obvious that
Jacksonian democracy had been influential within even the eth
nic versions of evangelical Christianity in the antebellum era.
The theology of revivalism provided another reason for oppos
ing secret societies. The 1877 Discipline, although it is outside
the period under discussion, succinctly states the theological dis
agreements the United Brethren Church had with secret soci
eties:
We believe that secret societies are evil in their nature
and tendency;...that they employ the forms of religion in
unwarranted services and ceremonies, not in the name of
Christ nor founded on the merits of his atonement;...that
they pervert the Holy Scriptures to foolish and unholy
uses; that the ceremonies encourage many of their
adherents in hopes of eternal life without a truly evan
gelical faith.41
Thus, secret societies were not only wrong for being secret
and undemocratic; they were wrong for offering a salvation that
was not from
Christ.
Three years after the William Morgan incident, the General
Conference adopted the following resolution—"Resolved, that in
no way or manner, nor in any sense of the word, shall
Freemasonry be approved or tolerated in our church." Masons
currently in the Church were advised that if they continued to
attend their lodges or participate in their ceremonies their
Church membership would be revoked.42 Like the alcohol stance,
the secret society position found its way from the Discipline to
the new Constitution, an even higher authority, in 1841.
Surprisingly, there is little discussion of Freemasonry in the
periodical articles of this period. In 1835, two articles appeared
arguing both sides of the issue of whether anti-Masonic societies
were needed.43 No other substantial treatment was located in
the volumes researched.
44

There was occasional opposition in the pre-War years from
within the Church. A committee was appointed in 1849 to exam
ine the stand and consider changes. One delegate, later to
become a bishop, issued a minority report that he "did not
believe it to be any part of the prerogative of an ecclesiastical
body to legislate in regard to what may be called...secret soci
eties."44 In 1858, the Sandusky Conference in Ohio was startled
to discover that six of their ministers were connected with the
Masons in some way. All confessed and repented when assured
of forgiveness and continued standing within the conference.45
The General Conference of 1861 reaffirmed the decision of
Sandusky Conference in this matter.
It was only after the War that United Brethren began to
involve themselves in larger anti-Masonic movements, partly
because the lodge movement had flourished during the war
years. The National Christian Association Opposed to Secret
Societies was formed in 1867, had significant United Brethren
participation, and elected United Brethren Bishop David
Edwards as its president in 1868. Bishop Edwards compared the
anti-Masonic movement to the anti-slavery movement before the
war. But he had to contend with a growing minority within his
own church who desired a loosening of the rules regarding
Masonic membership.
Those who favored Masonic affiliations were strong enough
by 1889 to control General Conference and adopt a new
Constitution that did not prohibit Mason membership. Those
who held to the 1841 Constitution withdrew and organized them
selves as the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Old
Constitution), led by Bishop Milton Wright, better known as the
father of airplane pioneers Wilbur and Orville Wright. The
majority styled themselves the Church of the United Brethren in
Christ (New Constitution). They merged with the Methodist
Episcopal Church in 1968. Those holding to the old constitution
do not permit Masonic membership to this day.
The United Brethren undoubtedly supported anti-Masonic
political movements, but there is no record of such substantial
involvement as with the abolitionist and temperance issues. This
is probably because of the Church's preoccupation with dis
agreements within its own ranks after the War.
45

Conclusion
The United Brethren in Christ were early and actively
involved in.the movements for abolition, temperance, and anti-
Masonry. They tightened their membership standards as a first
step, encouraged participation in wider movements as a second
step, and, with the possible exception of anti-Masonry, encour
aged their members to attempt political solutions for these
issues.
This was fueled by revivalism and made possible by democra
tization. Revivalism provided the theological basis for social
reform. Personal conversion, millennial expectations, and soci
etal transformation encouraged United Brethren to confront
what they saw as evils in their society. Democratization involved
a change in attitude from personal convictions to political
involvement. The United Brethren chose political ends because
the emphasis upon democratic ideals and processes made it fea
sible and acceptable. Otterbein and Boehm, living in a different
time, would probably not have chosen this route.
Thus, what Hatch proposed about other groups in American
society was true for the United Brethren, and probably for other
German groups as well. And what Timothy Smith, William
McLoughlin and others have argued for mainstream
Protestantism was true for the ethnic churches also, as long as
one recognizes that language and cultural shifts were needed for
full participation in these reform movements.
APPENDIX
An Explanation of the Rule Against Secret Societies:
"We believe that secret societies are evil in their nature and
tendency; that they employ solemn oaths and obligations for evil
and unworthy ends; that they bind men together in brotherhood
with wicked and unholy persons, and bring them into fellowship
not consistent with the teachings of our Lord and his apostles;
that they tend to produce jealousies and alienations in the
Church of God; that they employ the forms of religion in unwar
ranted services and ceremonies, not in the name of Christ nor
founded on the merits of his atonement; that they enjoin under
46

oaths and solemn obligation obedience to laws and regulations
unknown to the civil government within which they are orga
nized, or to any government divinely ordained; that they pervert
the Holy Scriptures to foolish and unholy uses; that the cere
monies encourage many of their adherents in hopes of eternal
life without a truly evangelical faith; that they are contrary to
that openness of conduct and guilelessness of character enjoined
by the word of God, and that Christians should not be connected
with them, for the apostle expressly says, 'Be ye not unequally
yoked ' 'Wherefore come out from among them....'"
—Discipline, 1877
Notes
1. Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity. (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 6. Hatch's work looks specifically at
songbooks, pamphlets, and periodicals of selected religious movements to cap
ture the character of American Christianity.
2. Ibid., 9-10. Hatch speaks specifically of three ways in which the most pop
ular religious movements acclimated to the democratic spirit of this age. First,
"they denied the age-old distinction that set the clergy apart as a separate
order of men, and they refused to defer to learned theologians and tradition
al orthodoxies" (pp. 9-10). Second, they "empowered ordinary people by taking
their deepest spiritual impulses at face value rather than subjecting them to
the scrutiny of orthodox doctrine and the frowns of respectable clergymen" (p.
10). Third, practitioners of these new movements "had little sense of their lim
itations. They dreamed that a new age of religious and social harmony would
naturally spring up out of their efforts to overthrow coercive and authorita
tive structures" (pp. 10-11).
3. The distinction between sin and sins is occasionally important. The former
betrays an Augustinian belief in original sin, or the depravity of man. Charles
Finney, on the other hand, spoke of sins as specific actions done contrary to
the will of God. He did not ascribe to original sin and therefore was occasion
ally denounced as a Pelagian.
4. Finney was a layperson who became a preacher, much like Dwight Moody
and Billy Sunday to follow. He even later became a professor and college pres
ident. He was the recognized leader of the growing throng of traveling evan
gelists. And he was influential in many of the social reform movements that
sprang out of revivalistic Christianity during the Second Great Awakening. In
these ways Finney becomes a symbol of the entire revivalistic movement.
47

5. If any group today has claim to spiritual descent from the revivalists of the
early republic, it would be those who style themselves "evangelicals" and as
represented by the National Association of Evangelicals. Indeed, their attach
ment to Finney as a spiritual father is still strong. This is evidenced in the
publication of a devotional biography of Finney in 1983 by an associate evan
gelist of Billy Graham—The Life and Ministry of Charles G. Finney by Lewis
A. Drummond (Bethany House Publishers).
6. Robert William Fogel, The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of
Egalitarianism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).
7. Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform: An Essay on Religion and Social
Change in America, 1607-1977 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978),
128-29. McLoughlin has written other volumes on Charles Finney and nine
teenth-century American evangelicalism. He identifies the other four "awak
enings" as the Puritan awakening (1610-1640), the first Great Awakening
(1730-1760), the third Awakening (1890-1920), and the fourth (1960-the pub
lication date).
8. Perfectionism as expressed in a millennial theology is examined by Ruth
Alden Doan in The Miller Heresy, Millennialism, and American Culture
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987). She specifically examines the
Adventist movement, which arose during this same period from the same
influences as mainstream revivalism.
9. Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism
on the Eve of the Civil War. (New York: Harper, 1955), 20-21. Smith's sources
include Robert Baird, State and Prospects of Religion in America (London,
1855), and Joseph Belcher, The Religious Denominations in the United States:
Their History, Doctrine, Government, and Statistics (Philadelphia, 1857).
10. By 1861, a United Brethren bishop could claim over 90,000 members, and
a 33 percent growth rate within a single quadrennium.
11. Specific numbers do not appear in United Brethren records until the time
of the Civil War. A subscriber to the United Brethren periodical, The Religious
Telescope, wrote to ask why no "round numbers" were given of total U.B. mem
bership. The reply: "We fear that the Spirit, called Satan, that induced David
to give the round number of his men to the world, is now at work in the minds
of thousands. It should be enough for the United Brethren in Christ to know
themselves and God, which is life eternal" (July 15, 1835).
12. Some would question whether it can properly be said that these groups
lacked a pietistic heritage, especially since the original Pietistic impulse
developed within the confines of German Lutheranism in Europe. However,
Pietism was as much a reaction to orthodox Lutheranism as Methodism was
to orthodox Anglicanism. Lutheranism proper was not pietistic, and is thus
not included in this discussion.
13. The formal name of the denomination is the Church of the United
Brethren in Christ.
14. Several United Brethren histories have been written. Early works include
Henry G. Spayth's History (Circleville, OH: United Brethren in Christ) in
1851 and John Lawrence's two-volume History (Dayton: United Brethren
Publishing Establishment) in 1861. Augustus W. Drury published his History
48

(Dayton: The Otterbein Press) in 1924. A more recent (1984) work edited by
Paul Fetters is titled Trials and Triumphs (Huntington, IN: United Brethren
in Christ), and is helpful as an introductory text. Martin Boehm is best report
ed in Reminiscences, Historical and Biographical, of Sixty-Four Years in the
Ministry (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1865) by his son Henry. J. Steven
O'Malley is the best living expert on Otterbein. His published works include
Pilgrimage of Faith: The Legacy of the Otterbeins (Metuchen, NJ: The
Scarecrow Press, 1973). For the years following Otterbein and Boehm, consult
the Life and Journal of Christian Newcomer (Hagerstown, MD: F. G. W. Kapp,
1834). Christian Newcomer was an early United Brethren minister and the
immediate successor to Otterbein and Boehm as bishop.
15. A Finney sermon is found as early as May of 1835. (The Telescope had
begun publishing only five months prior.) By 1845, Finney was almost a reg
ular feature. In March of that year, Finney's article was observing that "for
the last ten years, revivals of religion have been gradually becoming more and
more superficial" (March 12, 1845).
16. During this period, Pennsylvania seems to have had the greatest German
population of any conference. In 1837, when two times as many English
Disciplines were printed as German, Pennsylvania Conference needed 1000 of
each. No other conference had a ratio even close to this. In 184i all the other
conferences requested 25-50 German copies (as opposed to 200-400 English
copies). Pennsylvania requested 300 of each. Why, then, were the German
Conferences organized in Ohio and Illinois, rather than Pennsylvania? A pos
sible answer is that the Ohio and Illinois Germans were clustered, whereas
the Pennsylvania Germans were located in physical proximity to the English
churches.
17. January 14, 1835.
18. "Minutes of General Conference," 1821. United Brethren Historical
Center, Huntington, Indiana. Most General Conference Minutes from this
time period exist either in manuscript form or in translation, and are unnum
bered. Citations are noted simply by the year.
19. The 1825 Discipline directs that "should some be found in our society, or
others desire to be admitted as members, who hold slaves, they can neither
continue to be members, or be admitted as such, without they do personally
manumit or set free such slaves wherever the law of the state shall permit it,
or submit the case to the quarterly conference, to be by them specified, what
length of time such slave shall serve his master or other person, until the
amount paid for him, or for raising him, be compensated to his master. But
in no case shall a member of our society be permitted to sell a slave."
20. Fetters, 228-9.
21. "Minutes of the Virginia Annual Conference," 1852. United Brethren
Historical Center, Huntington, Indiana. Delegates adopted a five point reso
lution, promising 1) to "inquire within our bounds" as to whether any mem
bers owned slaves, 2) to "use all prudent and laudable means and measures
to guard against criminal connections with slavery," 3) to properly discipline
any who are in the wrong, 4) to present all evidence to General Conference in
1853, if required, and 5) to request interpretation from that same General
49

Conference.
22. "Minutes of General Conference," 1853, and Discipline (1853).
23. "Evil in the Land," The Religious Telescope (September 23, 1835).
24. "Professor Nevin's View of Slavery and Abolition," The Religious Telescope
(April 8, 1835). This article was originally printed in The Cincinnati Journal.
25. June 3, 1835 and June 17, 1835.
26. John Lawrence, The Slavery Question (Dayton, OH: United Brethren
Publishing Establishment, 1854), iii.
27. "General Progress of Anti-Slavery Movements," The Religious Telescope
(March 12, 1845).
28. September 24, 1845. The author was John Coons.
29. Otterbein College was one of the few colleges in the nation that welcomed
blacks on the same basis as whites. It was also a center for antislavery agita
tion before the War.
30. Fetters, 226-230.
31. In 1845, David Edwards, editor of The Religious Telescope, argued that the
United Brethren Church had maintained an official stand against alcohol
since 1812 (November 19, 1845). Did he mean 1814, or was there an earlier
prohibition? In either case, Edwards is obviously unaware that the U.B. had
no statement on alcohol between 1815 and 1833.
32. The 1833 Discipline states, "Should any Exhorter, Preacher, or Elder, from
and after the next annual conference in 1834, be engaged in the distillation or
vending of ardent spirits, he shall for the first and second offense be account
able to the quarterly or yearly conference, of which he is a member; said con
ference will in meekness admonish the offending brother to desist from the
distillation or vending of ardent spirits, as the case may be; should these
friendly admonitions fail, and the party continue to act in the same...such
preacher, elder, or exhorter will for the time not be considered a member of
this church."
33. The circular was printed in the 1837 Discipline.
34. "Temperance Address," The Religious Telescope (January 28, 1835). The
author of the address was Rev. George Duffield, a Presbyterian from
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He was also a relative of the author of
this study.
35. "Temperance," The Religious Telescope (August 12, 1835).
36. "Maine Liquor Law in Force in Ohio," The Religious Telescope (February
7, 1835).
37. ''Temperance in Indiana," The Religious Telescope (February 14, 1835).
38. Fetters, 232.
39. John Lawrence, Plain Thoughts on Secret Societies (Circleville, OH:
United Brethren Publishing Establishment, 1852), 47-48, 51.
40. Ibid., 60, 63.
41. 1877 Discipline. The entire passage is attached in an Appendix.
42. "Minutes of General Conference," 1829.
43. "Freemasonry" and "Anti-masonry," The Religious Telescope (April 22,
1835). The Freemason advocate made the argument that "if the principles of
the institution of Masonry are inimical to freedom—are destructive of good
50

morals, or are in any way unworthy of being cherished by freemen—they can
not flourish here; and if they are frivolous and trifling (as some allege and
many believe) now that the veil is lifted, let them alone, and they will prove
themselves innoxious [sic]."
44. "Minutes of the General Conference," 1849. The author of the report was
Jacob Markwood.
45. "Minutes of the Sandusky Annual Conference," 1858. United Brethren
Historical Center, Huntington, Indiana.
51

Licensing and Ordaining Women Ministers:
Nineteenth Century Developments in the
Church of the United Brethren in Christ
Chaney Bergdall
The topic of this essay is both historical and very current. This
survey was completed as preparation for taskforce discussions on
the ordination of women. That taskforce was authorized by the
General Conference of 1997. Its chair, the author of this article,
presented a divided report to the General Board in the Spring of
2000.
Chaney Bergdall is Professor of Bible and Religion at Huntington
College. He is also an ordained minister in the United Brethren
Church, and has pastored churches in Illinois and California. He
holds a Ph.D. in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary.
In the earliest years of the Church of the United Brethren in
Christ, its preachers, ministers, and bishops were men. The ear
liest Disciplines use the third person masculine singular pro
noun "he" to refer to persons wishing to obtain quarterly confer
ence and annual conference licenses. It was not clear whether
this was because of a biblically-based view that only men should
be ministers, or because of the common practice of the day, or
because this is a generic "he." In any case, during the 1840s and
1850s the records show that women began to apply for permis
sion to preach. These requests led first to a General Conference
report in 1845 that declined a woman's request for recognition as
a minister, but later the General Conference of 1889 inserted a
statement in the Discipline allowing women to be licensed and
ordained. This article traces what the records show about the
process by which the denomination came to its current position
and the reasoning involved in examining the issue.
Early Requests and the General Conference of 1845:
No Licensing.
But Commendation and Encouragement
The earliest request came at the Scioto Conference of 1841
from a woman whose name is variously recorded as L.
52

Courtland1 or S. Copeland.2 Sister Courtland "had an impression
that the Lord was calling her to some public work in his vine
yard, and asked counsel as to her prompting and the kind of
work she might do."3 After two different committees were
appointed to confer with her, she was neither licensed nor per
mitted to preach, teach, or exhort; but she was advised to use her
gifts and callings for the cause of Christ. The reason for this
action, as quoted by Drury, was the inability of the committees to
determine if she "was under the influence of the Holy Ghost
either to preacher, teach, or exhort."3
In this first recorded incident, there is no evidence that she
had earlier been granted a quarterly conference license to
preach. Furthermore, it is not clear that she was asking for a
license to preach; she was asking for guidance regarding what
kind of work she could do. The recorded reason that the annual
conference declined to license her to preach was uncertainty
regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in her life. If there were
objections to her preaching, teaching, or exhorting because
Scripture limits such activities to men, those objections were not
recorded. At the same time, the annual conference affirmed and
encouraged her in her work for Christ and the church.
In the Scioto Conference of 1843, Louisa P. Clemens request
ed to be set apart as a minister by the laying on of hands. By res
olution, the conference decided that her request could not be
heard until the next annual conference.4 In this case, Sister
Clemens was making a definite request for recognition as a min
ister in the church. No reasons are given for the delay in consid
ering her request. Apparently, either it was not considered or it
was denied in 1844, because in 1845 Sister Clemens brought her
request to the General Conference, where it was referred to a
committee of three.5 The committee reported
That the prayr [sic] of petitioner cannot be granted,
because
1. she is no [sic] a member of the church
2. or the Annual Conference
3. we do not think the Gospel authorises the
Introduction of females into the Ministry in the
sense in which she requests it.6
53

It is surprising that she thought she could gain recognition as
a minister if she were neither a member of the United Brethren
Church nor of the annual conference in her area. In addition to
that ecclesiastical disqualification, the General Conference also
based its decision on its understanding that the Scriptures do not
allow women in the ministry, at least in certain aspects or roles
that are here left undefined. In this respect, this decision goes a
step further than the case of L.
Courtland.
Two years later in 1847, the White River Conference dealt
with the request of Charity Opheral to be granted permission to
preach. The conference gave her a "vote of commendation" for her
to be free to do public speaking, but the fact that she was not
included in the list of recognized preachers of the conference
shows that this action "apparently did not imply recognition as a
preacher of the church."7 In this case, there is evidence that the
conference intended to affirm and encourage this woman in her
public work for Christ at the same time that it limited her status
to something less than an annual conference preacher.
The Case of Lydia
Sexton
In her autobiography, Lydia Sexton has recorded a detailed,
first-person account of one United Brethren woman's struggle
with the issue of women preachers in the ministry of the church.
While attending a dance as a young woman, she felt God's call to
a ministry of preaching repentance from sin, but she did not act
on that calling.8 Although she was from a Baptist background
and had a preference for the Baptist church, she came to join the
United Brethren.9 In public meetings of the United Brethren,
she did not pray, preach, or exhort even when she was urged to
do so by others in the group. One of them went so far as to rebuke
her for not speaking up for Jesus.10 Then on one occasion she
spoke up at a some length in a class meeting. In response to that,
she was offered a license, but she declined.11 Lydia Sexton felt
God's call to preach but hesitated because she did not think that
women should be preachers. Her first encouragement to speak
publicly came from the United Brethren.
For ten years she debated with herself, faltered, and hesitat
ed. She searched the Scriptures to justify her conduct of not
54

preaching but found more to condemn her for remaining silent.12
She came to believe that she was "...neglecting to follow my con
victions of duty in the work of calling sinners to repentance."13
During a serious illness of her son, she promised to devote her
self to God's service if God would spare him. God did, and she ful
filled her vow by agreeing to preach. Two respected men in her
church, one of whom was an elder, and her husband all declined
to forbid her to preach.14
At her first sermon, a minister in the Disciples (Christian)
Church heard her, commended her, and invited her to preach for
his congregation.15 She backed out of her second appointment
because of the opposition of her mother-in-law; but at the U.B.
quarterly conference,
the elders and preachers urged her strong
ly to preach and she did. Her mother-in-law enjoyed the meeting
and never again expressed opposition. Later, on her deathbed,
she gave Lydia her encouragement to preach.16
In 1851, at the urging of others and on the initiative of a U.B.
preacher, she was granted a quarterly conference license to
preach. The license read: 'This is to certify that Lydia Sexton is
an approved minister of the gospel among us, the United
Brethren in Christ."17 In Lydia's case, she was urged and encour
aged by others to preach and to seek a license from the church as
an approved preacher.
Lydia Sexton continued to preach, facing opposition from some
and encouragement and support from others. On one occasion, she
prayed for one soul that day as a seal of her ministry, and fourteen
people became believers and were formed into a U.B. class.18 In
1859, she was recommended for an annual conference license.
When the matter was brought to the floor of the Upper Wabash
Annual Conference, Bishop David Edwards cited a resolution19
passed at the previous General Conference of 1857 "...that no
woman should be licensed to preach in our church."20 Bishop
Edwards explained that licensing would lead to the office of elder
and bishop, "which the General Conference considered not in accor
dance with the word of God; that the teachings of the Bible forbid
women ruling in the church of God—but to be in subjection."20
The conference then proceeded with other business.
Later the
bishop clarified that he was not opposed to women preaching,
only to licensing them, and that a letter of recommendation
55

would not conflict with the Bible or Discipline. Such a letter of
recommendation was then unanimously adopted.21 The docu
ment read:
Whereas, Sister Lydia Sexton is regarded among us as
a Christian lady of useful gifts as a pulpit speaker; and,
Whereas, She has been laboring among us in the
Gospel of Christ;
therefore,
Resolved, That we, the members of the Upper Wabash
Annual Conference, of the church of the United
Brethren in Christ, do hereby recommend her to the
churches as a useful helper in the work of Christ.
T. Cogwill, Sec. David Edwards, Bishop
Perrysville, Indiana, April 2, 1859.22
The case of Lydia Sexton shows that the church opposed the
formal licensing of women as preachers while encouraging
women preachers and commending them to the churches. Mrs.
Sexton herself did not think it was biblically permissible for her
to preach, but she was encouraged by United Brethren people to
preach and to seek a license to preach. As she searched the
Scriptures, she became convinced that it was permissible for her
to preach and that she must respond to God's call to preach. In
response to her request, she was told by Bishop Edwards that the
church did not allow the licensing of women preachers; at the
same time Bishop Edwards and the Upper Wabash Annual
Conference took action to acknowledge this woman as a gifted
preacher and to recommend her to others in the denomination.
Continuing Requests and the General Conference of 1889:
Ministerial Credentials Granted to Women
The issue of licensing women to preach continued to be
addressed in the church, leading to another General Conference
action in 1889. A meeting of the Board of Bishops in 1875 gives
evidence of continued discussion about the issue. In his biogra-
56

phy of Bishop David Edwards, Lewis Davis notes this action
taken at the meeting: "It was decided that there is no authority
in the Discipline for granting license to preach to women. This
was in harmony with a decision long before given by Bishop
Edwards."23 Although it is not clear, it is probable that the earli
er decision of Bishop Edwards was his action regarding Lydia
Sexton at the 1859 meeting of the Upper Wabash Annual
Conference.
The records of the various annual conferences also give evi
dence that women who believed that God was calling them to
preach continued to approach their annual conferences to ask for
commendations to preach. According to C.A. Wilmore, Anna
Bailey sought admission to the White River Conference in 1874
upon recommendation from her quarterly conference, and the
annual conference granted her a commendation as a preacher.24
"Admission to the conference" means recognition as an approved
minister in the church, but it is not clear that she gained that
level of authorization.
In A.B. Condo's History of Indiana Conference, he records that
Maggie Thompson Elliott received a quarterly conference license
to preach in 1874 and an annual conference license at the
Indiana Annual Conference in 1876, thus becoming a member of
the conference.25 In another context, however, he says that the
conference voted to give her a "letter of commendation" and that
she was thereby "virtually licensed to preach."26 It is likely that
she was not considered to be a licensed preacher at the time and
that Condo's comments reflect the full recognition given to her
after the General Conference decision of 1889. In 1879 the
Kansas Conference gave Nancy M. Kingery a recommendation,27
and in 1881 the White River Conference granted Vienna C.
Johnson a recommendation to preach the gospel.28
The Michigan Annual Conference of 1888 took action that
placed the issue of licensing women on the agenda of the General
Conference of 1889. Mrs. L.J. Batdorf and Mrs. S.A. Lane had
been recommended to the annual conference for license to
preach, but the bishop refused to grant them a license.29 This
refusal was consistent with the previous decisions of General
Conference and the Board of Bishops. In response, the Michigan
Annual Conference adopted the following resolution: "Resolved,
57

That we as a conference request the next General Conference to
adopt measures by which Women may be licensed to preach the
gospel on an equality with men."30 It is apparent that for sever
al years women had been granted permission to preach and were
recommended to the denomination to be used in the preaching
ministry. However, they lacked the full status and recognition
conveyed by licensing. Now, once again, the issue was making its
way to the floor of the General Conference.
The General Conference of 1889 is well-known because of the
split that occurred between the "Liberals" and the "Radicals"
over several weighty issues related to the church referendum on
a revised Constitution and Confession of Faith. The Liberals
dealt with the issue after the departure of the Radicals. In a com
mittee report presenting recommended changes in the
Discipline, it was recommended to insert a paragraph providing
for the licensing of women to preach. After some discussion, the
new paragraph was adopted:
Licensing Women
Not wishing to hinder any Christian, who may be
moved by the Holy Spirit, to labor in the vineyard of
God for the salvation of souls, it is ordered, that when
ever any godly woman presents herself before the
quarterly or annual conference as an applicant for
authority to preach the gospel among us, she may be
licensed so to
do.
Provided, such person complies with the usual condi
tion required of men who wish to reach the ministry of
our church, and passes like examinations by a proper
committee of the conference, and in our courses of
study; and may be ordained after the usual proba
tion.31
The conference deleted a final phrase "at the discretion of the
conference" because they did not want to create a situation in
which some annual conferences would willingly ordain women
and other annual conferences would decline to ordain women.32
58

The Radical United Brethren who kept the old constitution
also dealt with the issue. On the day after their withdrawal, the
request from the Michigan Conference "to consider the propriety
of granting license to women to preach the Gospel" was present
ed.33 On the following day, when dealing with changes to the
Discipline, the delegates voted to place this statement in the
Discipline: "There shall be no discrimination between men and
women in the matter of granting ministerial credentials."34 No
discussion was recorded in the minutes.
Thus both branches of the United Brethren adopted identical
positions allowing the licensing and ordination of women. Before
the year was over, Mrs. Batdorf and Mrs. Lane were licensed to
preach by the Michigan Conference, Old Constitution,35 and in
1890 they were ordained and admitted to the itinerancy.36
Issues Examined in the Debate
United Brethren documents from the years prior to and
immediately after 1889 show that the debate about the issue of
licensing and ordaining women included arguments that can be
placed into two categories: practical and biblical.
Practical
A few practical reasons based on reason, common sense, and
experience are found in the records.
In opposition to licensing and ordaining women
In the General Conference (New Constitution) debate on this
issue in 1889, C. Hall is reported as saying that women are pecu
liarly fitted for some lines of work, and so are men for other lines
of work.37
In support of licensing and ordaining women
Lydia Sexton saw the conversions that occurred through her
preaching as the seal of God on her ministry.38 Raising the ques
tion how someone else could determine who is called to preach,
she set forth her view that the church should encourage those
who are successful.39
59

Noting the contributions of women to the temperance move
ment and to missions, Jonathan Weaver argued that the church
must be willing to change its polity and adapt to new means that
are being used to advance the cause of Christ.40
Biblical
Many more biblical reasons are discussed. The ones found in
print in support of licensing and ordaining women are much
more specific than those in opposition. This does not mean that
no one could think of any specific reasons to give in opposition; it
probably reflects a situation in which those who were advocating
change had to put forward a number of reasons in favor of the
change. Indeed, several of the reasons put forward in favor of
licensing and ordaining women were undoubtedly answers to
specific reasons that were widely known and accepted in opposi
tion to the same.
In opposition to licensing and ordaining women
General Conferences prior to 1889 addressed this issue with
policy statements opposing the licensing and ordination of
women. The General Conference committee responding to Louisa
Clemens in 1845 declared that "we do not think the Gospel
authorises the Introduction of females into the Ministry in the
sense in which she requests it."41 Later when Lydia Sexton
sought an annual conference license, Bishop Edwards explained
that licensing would lead to the office of elder and bishop, "which
the General Conference [of 1857] considered not in accordance
with the word of God; that the teachings of the Bible forbid
women ruling in the church of God—but to be in subjection."42
These examples show the general nature of the biblical reasons
given in opposition to licensing and ordaining women.
In support of licensing and ordaining women
Those who advocated and defend the change in the church's
position regarding the licensing a.xd ordination of women noted
that in the Bible God often chose and used women as prophet
esses, leaders, and workers for the cause of Christ. These includ
ed Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Priscilla, Philip's daughters,
60

Phoebe, Euodia, and Syntyche.43 Lydia Sexton was convinced to
speak publicly in church services by the Bible's instructions to
speak up for the Lord (Malachi 3:16-17; Hebrews 10:25), to use
one's talent for the Lord (Matthew 25:25), and to not object to the
call of God (Jeremiah 1:6).44 She argued that there is as much to
support women being called to preach as there is to support men
being called.45 Bishop Jonathan Weaver challenged his readers
to show where the Scriptures forbid licensing women to preach.46
The writings of Paul received special attention. An editorial in
the Christian Conservator argued against the view that Paul
opposed women or hated women, maintaining that "Paul taught
the divinely appointed station of the woman, which secures her
highest good and greatest true elevation, that denies her no nat
ural right nor acquired privilege, which would promote her wel
fare."47 This is followed by the citation of I Corinthians 7:3;
Ephesians 5:25, 28; Colossians 3:19; and I Timothy 5:2. In the
General Conference (New Constitution) debate on this issue in
1889, H.D. Healy argued for the equality of the sexes in Christ
based on Galatians 3:28.48
Passages in Paul's writings that place restrictions on women
were examined. Lydia Sexton claimed that I Corinthians 11:1-16
shows that women preached and prophesied in the church.49 The
editor of the Christian Conservator noted that this passage clear
ly allows women to pray and prophesy in the church, and that
the restrictions placed upon women in this passage have to do
with appropriate cultural dress to show chastity, modesty, and
subjection to their husbands.50
In the Religious Telescope, the forerunner to the Christian
Conservator, William J. Shuey reported on a series of lectures
delivered by a trio of prominent nineteenth-century Christian
women leaders—a Mrs. Jenkins, Lucretia Mott, and Lucy Stone.
He reports favorably on Lucretia Mott's view that Paul's injunc
tion for women's silence in I Corinthians 14:34-35 applies to that
particular church and to purely local discussions; otherwise Paul
contradicts himself when he calls Priscilla and Phoebe his colaborers.51
Lydia Sexton understood that this call to silence relat
ed to church government and to questions about the circumcision
of Gentiles.52
61

The editor of the Christian Conservator understood that the
Corinthian women were interrupting the church meetings with
questions and perhaps with public disputes. The proper applica
tion of this call to silence is not to "prevent women from praying,
telling their experience or preaching the Word in the public con
gregation," but to "forbid women from interrupting the preacher
to make inquiries or from entering into public disputes in the
church."53 The same view about I Corinthians 14:34-35 is set
forth in a later editorial, along with an allusion to I Timothy
2:12. The latter passage is understood to forbid women to teach
"in such a sense as to usurp authority over the man."54
Some remarks in the debate are related to general issues of
interpretation and application. Lucretia Mott was reported as
noting that there are certain particular instructions of Paul that
are commonly not heeded, such as his direction that a widower
should remain a widower, and that there are those who quote the
Bible in arguments against temperance and the freedom of
slaves.55 The implication is that the specific circumstances of
each biblical situation and the broad principles of biblical teach
ing must be taken into account when attempting to apply any
biblical passage to the present day.
Summary
During the nineteenth century, the Church of the United
Brethren in Christ changed its position on the licensing and ordi
nation of women for ministry in the church. The discussions
recorded in documents from the time show that there was an
examination of Scripture by those on both sides of the issue, and
that there was a desire on both sides to be true to the teachings
of Scripture. The few practical comments show that this view of
appropriate roles for women was being challenged by those who
were observing the successful work of women in new ways.
From the time of the earliest recorded requests from women
seeking guidance for their work in the church, encouragement
was given to women to use their gifts in the ministry of the
church, even in the role of preaching. Eventually, the church
went a step further than granting commendations to women to
preach in United Brethren circles, and the General Conference of
62

1889 authorized full ministerial credentials for women alongside
men in the church.
Notes
1. A.W. Drury, History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. (Dayton:
United Brethren Publishing House, 1883), 425.
2. J. Bruce Behney and Eller, Paul H. The History of the Evangelical United
Brethren Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979), 159.
3. Drury, 425.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Minutes of the Ninth General Conference of the United Brethren in Christ,
1845. (Huntington: United Brethren Archives), 92.
7. Ibid., 96.
8. Behney and Eller, 160.
9. Lydia Sexton, Autobiography of Lydia Sexton: The Story of Her Life (Dayton:
United Brethren Publishing House, 1882), 197-9.
10. Ibid., 199-210.
11. Ibid, 208-9.
12. Ibid., 210-1.
13. Ibid., 213-7.
14. Ibid., 223.
15. Ibid., 223-6.
16. Ibid., 230-1.
17. Ibid., 234-5.
18. Ibid., 239-40.
19. Ibid., 242-4.
20. Through examination of the Minutes of the Tivelfth General Conference of
the United Brethren in Christ, 1857 (Huntington: United Brethren Archives),
I have been unable to confirm either the existence or the exact text of this
resolution. Neither have I been able to confirm the existence of this resolu
tion in the histories of the United Brethren Church. The only account of this
resolution that I have found is in Lydia Sexton's autobiography.
21. Sexton, 400.
22. Ibid., 400-1.
23. Ibid., 401-2.
24. Ibid., 403.
25. Lewis Davis, The Life of Rev. David Edwards, D.D. (Dayton: United
Brethren Publishing House, 1883), 301.
26. Augustus Cleland Wilmore, History of the White River Conference of the
Church of the United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: United Brethren
Publishing House, 1925), 185-6.
27. Adam Byron Condo, History of the Indiana Conference of the Church of
the United Brethren in Christ (Indiana Conference, 1926), 178.
28. Ibid., 74.
63

29. Bernard L. Cook and John Erwin Branson, "Seedtime and Harvest: A
History of the Kansas Conference of the Church of the United Brethren in
Christ." [Unpublished master's thesis, Bonebrake Theological Seminary,
1943], 32.
30. Wilmore, 196.
31. Daryl Elliott, 'The United Brethren General Conference of 1889 and the
Ordination of Women," Methodist History 28 (1990): 145.
32. Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh Session of the Michigan Annual
Conference, 1888. (Huntington: United Brethren Archives).
33. Official Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the Twentieth General
Conference of the United Brethren in Christ. (Dayton: United Brethren
Publishing House, 1889), 236.
34. Ibid., 236-40.
35. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Twentieth General Conference of the
United Brethren in Christ (Dayton: Milton Wright, 1889), 28.
36. Ibid., 33.
37. Christian Conservator (October 3, 1889). 6.
38. Christian Conservator (September 25, 1890), 6.
39. Official Report, 240-1.
40. Sexton, 242-4.
41. Ibid., 255.
42. H.A. Thompson, Biography of Jonathan Weaver, D.D. (Dayton: United
Brethren Publishing House, 1925), 426.
43. Minutes of the Ninth General Conference, 96.
44. Sexton, 400-1.
45. Ibid., 211, 213-7, 253-5; "Silence of Women," Christian Conservator (April
13, 1898), 8.
46. Sexton, 211, 213-7.
47. Ibid., 254-5.
48. Thompson, 426.
49. "Paul and Women," Christian Conservator (September 14, 1898), 10.
50. Official Report, 240.
51. Sexton, 395.
52. "Silence...," 8.
53. W[illiam] J. Sfhuey], "Notes on 'Women's Rights,"' Religious Telescope
(November 2 1853), 1.
54. Sexton, 395.
55. "Silence...," 8.
56. "Paul and Women," 10.
57. Shuey, 1.
64