Originally, this page was dedicated completely to the
following compilation of John Mast on the subject of the early Beachy church
history. However, I have been shocked at the response I have seen to this
writing. If readers garnish nothing but anti-Amish and anti-conservative fodder
out of these writings, and sit in righteous judgment of these men who, to some,
appear to be arguing over worthless, inexpedient trivial matters, then I may as
well take this article off the web and let these people search for personal
grudge ammunition elsewhere.
I find it commendable how some of these characters reacted
given the circumstances, especially Moses Beachy, a man whose heart was bent on
peace and unity, but would not lower himself as to shun fellow brothers and
sisters whose only ‘offense’ was a membership change. Had he not so diligently
sought peace, the split may have been made 10 years earlier than it was, but as
was the case, this division was practically inevitable. With what little
information we have here, there is no credible way to downsize the persons
presented in the following document, especially after over half a century since
these men passed on. And I challenge the reader: was there never a time that
you wrote a letter or spoke or thought such things as that of the contents of
Daniel Schlabach’s letter? Be thankful that these trinkets of yours have never
been published for a world to see, otherwise we may be shaking our heads at
you, judging your life character on one incident.
F A C T S
Concerning the
BEACHY A. M.
DIVISION OF
1927
Edited by
JOHNB.MAST
Copyright, 1950
by
Menno J. Yoder
Meyersdale, Penna.
INTRODUCTION
From the following
documents it appears that “strict avoidance” and “the introduction of Sunday
School” had much to do with the 1927 division in the Old Order Amish
congregation of Somerset county, Pennsylvania.
Another factor, however, which is quite evident, is a variance on strictness of
church discipline, the issue which has been the cause of most Amish and
Mennonite divisions: a point of difference not serious enough to become a major
issues and on which there could be tolerable variance in opinion if it were approached
“with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Eph. 4:2, 3.
Several
years after this division had occurred the Beachy faction made concessions on
owning automobiles, for which Bishop Moses M. Beachy has been criticized by his
opponents until many have been led to believe that such innovations were the
cause of this division. It is hoped that the following presentation of facts
will clear up this misconception. This is nothing more than second-hand gossip
(hear-say) which has definitely been abusive to those who chose to dissent from
the imposition of extreme church rulings. It naturally follows that the portion
of the church favoring a more liberal course in the use of modern conveniences,
was also opposed to this sectarian avoidance, and, in the division the majority
of these went with the Beachy fashion, which made these concessions the more
inevitable. We could enumerate case after case where Amish bishops made
concessions on matters they felt a compromise could never be made, yet assented
because they lacked a definite “Thus saith the Lord.” Likewise, Bishop Beachy
was not in favor of these concessions, but could not make a serious distinction
in “driving” or merely “riding along” with those whom we regard as outsiders
and therefore irresponsible for such supposed transgressions. He contended that
what is wrong for one must also be wrong for another, since there is no respect
of persons with God. (Read Col. 3:25; Gal. 5:10
and Romans 2:1-11.)
“The Yoder
faction of this division is constantly tightening its church regulations
relating to concourse with other Amish and Mennonite groups. Several years ago
they somehow enacted a ruling which, in effect, forbids their members from
doing manual labor for members of any other groups outside of their own sect.
This has obviously placed an undue hardship on their young laboring men, and
because of the limited hiring opportunities some have been induced to move to
other communities, which in turn seems to have caused more dissatisfaction
within the group itself. At any rate, this “moving out” is not entirely
confined to young married couples alone.”
John B. Mast.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENT
Dr. Rufus M. Beachy
(Veterinary)
Subject:
Who instituted sectarian avoidance in Somerset
county, Penna.?
Brief
review of happenings regarding church matters relative to changes that have
been made from time to time; the avoidance as instituted in the Somerset
congregation especially. In June of the year 1894 this congregation called on
Joseph Witmer of Davis county,
Indiana, and John Gascho of Canada
for assistance because the resident ministers were unable to serve the church
on account of impaired health, etc. After investigating our situation, Brother
Witmer stated under what circumstances he would assist us and hold communion
service for us. His conditions were: “If you are willing to keep house as do
the Old Order Amish churches who minister together and commune with one
another, I am willing to assist you all I can. If you are not agreed to this,
then I can board the B. & O. as easily for home as I did to come here.” On
the strength of that statement communion was held. Brother Witmer assisted us
in at least three communion services after that, and at one of the council
meetings those who withdrew from the Maryland congregation asked permission to
commune with the Somerset congregation, to which Brother Witmer again made the
above statement, and said further, “All who accept this statement and are at
one with me, are welcome to commune no matter where they come from.” On
strength of that statement communion was again held, and all who took part
voiced agreement with him, preacher Moses D. Yoder included.
At a later
communion conducted by Brother Witmer, assisted by C. S. Beachy now of Plain
City, Ohio, Moses D. Yoder was
ordained as bishop. It has been proved that Moses D. Yoder asked Brother Witmer
to institute sectarian avoidance as it now stands. Witmer refused the request
because he did not have it that way at home, nor any of the churches with whom
he is working. Here is one witness that Witmer opposed such a move. Brother C.
S. Beachy who assisted at the communion and ordination service, testified that
Witmer was opposed to such a move. Here are two witnesses, which is scriptural
as far as number is concerned. Avoidance as now practiced was instituted here
about a year after Witmer’s last visit. The previous summer Witmer was often
consulted and his letters read before the church. He was often referred to as
“our good friend Witmer.” When the consent of the church was requested to enact
avoidance as it now is, nothing was said about our good friend Witmer who had
advised against the move. The fact that Witmer had come to our assistance, and
advised how and what to do, and the fact that his name was frequently
mentioned, and that he was often consulted by letter, the church was left under
the impression that the move was taken upon his recommendation. Had the church
been informed of the fact that Witmer opposed this move, the united voice of
the church could never have been obtained.
A few years
later Joseph Kemp of Indiana
visited with us. I think he was a member of the late David Kaufman
congregation. Anyhow, in the course of our conversation he enquired how we
conducted ourselves toward those who choose to join the other (Conservative)
church, when there was only the change of churches against them. I told him
that it is supposed that a personal avoidance was observed in all such cases.
He asked me who advised us to take such steps. In answer to this query I
informed him that Witmer had served our church in the capacity of Bishop for
several years, and that I had reasons to believe that he had advised us in
this, Kemp shook his head. He said if I investigate I will find that Witmer did
not advise us to take such steps; that he knows Witmer, and that Witmer and
David Kaufman were considered church fathers of their time, and that he knows
that they do not agree with that teaching. I don’t know that I ever said
anything about this to anyone, and will say that Kemp began the conversation on
that particular subject. I would not have mentioned it on my own accord.
In the fall
of 1905 my wife and I were in Iowa
on a visit and spent the night with Preacher Peter Brenneman. In the course of
our conversation Brenneman asked who was responsible for the institution of
avoidance the way we have it. He was then informed that we did it ourselves. He
replied: “This was done quite some time ago, and you have probably forgotten
about it,” and asked “Was not Joseph Witmer the man who enacted that move?” He
was then informed that this was done about a year after Witmer was there the
last time. Brenneman said Witmer denied having anything to do with that act,
but we did not believe him. He said Witmer was so severely criticized for it
that he rose to his feet before the church assembled on two different
occasions, declaring he had nothing to do with instituting that avoidance, that
they requested that he introduce it that way when he was there, and said
further, “I told them that I could not do that, since I do not have it that way
at home, nor do the churches with whom I minister and commune. What they have
done since I was there they have done of themselves, and I do not agree with
it.” Brenneman verified this attitude. Also Bishop J. F. Swartzendruber and
Bishop Peter Kinsinger. The testimonies of the two bishops and one minister all
agree with Brother Kemp’s statements. We have two witnesses to prove that
Brother Witmer advised against such a move when he was here the last time,
which corresponds with Witmer’s statements made before the congregation in the
presence of many witnesses. Bishop C. S. Beachy of Plain City, Ohio, says that
he and Witmer were called to Allen county, Indiana, on three of four different
occasions where avoidance was the main subject, and that Witmer opposed it
every time. – Brother Kemp remarked that it seems to him this was rather a
presumptious (vorwitzing) step for a man to undertake who had been advised
against such a move by his friend and adviser, considering the short time he
had been ordained to the position of bishop.
After
Bishop Peter Kinsinger and Preacher Peter Brenneman had gone to their reward, I
felt there might come a time when proof would be demanded, so I wrote to Bishop
J. F. Swartzendruber relating the conversation between Peter Brenneman and
myself and asked if he could recall any of these facts. I received a letter in
a few days confirming all that had been said by Brenneman and Kinsinger. His
German statement follows: “Ja, ich kann voll Zeugnis geben zu was du schreibst,
dass Peter Brenneman euch erzählt hat. Ich hörte Witmer dasselbige an zwei
verschiedene Versammlungen sehr kräftig sagen.”
Bishop
Peter Wagler of Davis county,
Indiana, who was one of Witmer’s co-laborers at the time Witmer assisted us,
said in the presence of witnesses that he had seen a letter written to Moses D.
Yoder in which he (Witmer) advised against this move. Had Moses D. Yoder and his
following been opposed to sectarian avoidance, then we might have been told of
Witmer’s advice against the move. Those who willfully ignored the advice of our
friend and benefactor are responsible for the condition of the church today.
____________________
An Account of the 1927 Division in SomersetCounty, Penna.
By Menno J.
Yoder (Church Accountant)
To whom it
may concern regarding reasons for the division in the Old Order Amish church
of Somerset county, Pennsylvania,
on June 26, 1927. There had
been considerable difference in opinion on the proper application of avoidance
among the brotherhood for a number of years. Some considered it an injustice to
excommunicate and avoid such as left our church and affiliated with other
churches of like faith; others insisted on absolute and unconditional avoidance
of any and all members who chose to worship with other nonresistant churches.
In one such specific case, namely, John D. Yoder and wife, were warned to avoid
certain parties who had transferred to the Conservative A. M. church. The
person insisting on the observance of this practice was asked by John D. Yoder:
“Do you mean to say we must avoid
them.” He replied: “You must.” John
then said, “if we must, we will also
transfer to the other church.” And they, too, affiliated with the Conservative
A. M. Church at Grantsville, Maryland,
but were later called back into our church to give reasons for leaving this
church, and gave this issue of compulsory avoidance as their reason. This
provoked still more contention by the stricter faction of the church, and it
was decided to call ministers to investigate this matter of avoidance. Then Ben
Beiler and Gideon Stoltzfus of Lancaster
county, Penna., Eli J. Bontreger of Indiana, and Joseph D. Schrock of Illinois
were summoned to Somerset county to decide this particular case by arbitration,
but instead they stuck a plan which they felt would adjust our difficulties
automatically, and recommended that our church counsel all such cases
individually.
____________________
A Chronology of Meetings and Events
October
3, 1926: Mose Beachy made a motion (Vorstellung) concerning ban and
avoidance, with reference to the John D. Yoder case, because they were unable to
secure the unanimous voice of the church to expel them, merely for making the
transfer to the Conservative church, and the ministers council was also in a
deadlock. Joseph and Noah Yoder insisted on expelling them, and Mose Beachy
would not, under the circumstances, agree to this. October
31, 1926: Mose made known how he thought he should head the
congregation. Intimating that he had been accused of not punishing the
disobedient. He then pointed out that many new things had been introduced into
the church during Mose D. Yoder’s administrations as bishop, and also in
Manasse’s and Joel Beachy’s time. Also that in his father’s time, as also in
previous administrations, many things were forbidden that were not fully
obeyed, but still were not punished. He said those ministers had been called to
settle the John D. Yoder case, but had reached no definite resolution, and that
he now considers the case finished. He then asked the congregation: “Why not
leave this matter of changing churches to them and God, instead of expelling
and avoiding them and still pretend to be leaving it to them and God, since we
have no exact Scripture for it.” He further expressed his desire to maintain
church ordinances as much as is expedient; that if anyone has things which are
not in line with our rules and church regulations, now if the time to dispose
of them. He specially mentioned a number of things which were somewhat drifting
away from the former modes and practices and pleaded that those concerned take
steps to correct the situation. In such tedious times, he said, he thought it
not advisable to impose severe punishment, that he prefers to go easy rather
than to punish excessively and thereby give the people occasion to leave the
church, and asked: How many of us are in a position to avoid such members when
we take our own shortcomings into consideration, and suggested being careful in
the matter. He then asked the other ministers to express themselves. Mose D.
Yoder said he did not understand the matter. Noah Yoder said he thought we were
far beside the instructions of those ministers in bringing this matter before
the church, that he does not know what to say. He said the congregation might
think they had counseled over this in their private session in the morning, but
that they had not, and that he did not know what was to come up. Then Mose told
him he should not say this, because he did know. That he had told them this
morning during minister’s counsel what he proposed to say before the church,
which Noah then attested. Joe Yoder then said: “When those ministers were here
they were hindered from doing anything with the John D. Yoder case.” Mose
Beachy then told him that when they had tried to bring up other things he
insisted on clearing up the John D. Yoder case first because it had been the
issue for which they had been called; that he had offered to take up anything
that was considered necessary, after this main issue was settled, but they
would not do anything definitely about it. Mose then announced council meeting
to be held in two weeks, and said further that we should not allow ourselves to
become so entangled with our traditions that we transgress the commandments of
God (Matt. 15:3-9) even hindering the observance of the Lord’s Supper.
November
14, 1926: C. J. Swatzentruber and D. J. Swartzentruber were here to
assist in council meeting at the Niverton meeting house. After the preaching
service Mose Beachy made the motion (Vorstellung) and mentioned quite a number
of items which he felt he could not tolerate, including such things as men’s
(too) short hair, and women’s short dress waists, but made a concession on
shawls which were to be word four-cornered as was the practice in the western
churches. (They formerly wore them three-cornered.) The automobile, he said, would
draw the line, that he could not allow them since the other Old Order churches
do not have them. He then announced his position in regard to the John D. Yoder
case, stating that everyone must make his own choice as to where he will
worship, and that he cannot impose restrictions on religious liberties. Joseph
and Noah Yoder would not agree to this and were unwilling to proceed with
communion services. The voice of the church showed the majority in favor of
proceeding, but no communion was announced.
November
28, 1926: Church was held at the Summit Mills meeting house. Mose
Beachy announced a difficulty between Gideon Brenneman and himself concerning
the use of electricity, but that it has been settled. Mose assured the
congregation that a way would be made whereby they might proceed with
communion.
April
3, 1927: Had council meeting at Niverton. Mose expressed himself as
to how he felt these affairs should be conducted, but no voice was taken and no
communion was announced.
April
10, 1927: Had church at Summit Mills house. April 17th: Had church
at Summit Mills with intention to hold communion, but had non because some were
dissatisfied with the administration of the church. Communion services were
announced for April 24th.
April 24th:
Held communion services at Niverton house, but only a few over half of the
members communed. May 1st: Had church at Niverton house. May 8th: Had a meeting
at Niverton to organize Sunday School. May 15th: Had church at Summit Mills
house where eight young souls came under ministerial instruction and wanted to
accept Christ. May 22nd: Had our first Sunday School. May 26th (Thursday): Had
Sunday School at Summit Mills but none at Niverton. Shortly before this date
the dissatisfied portion of the church had called ministers to investigate
their difficulties, and on May 26th this faction had a church service in the
home of Amos Yoder where B. F. Beiler and G. K. Stolzfus of Lancaster
county, Pa., and Abe Yoder and
Jacob Stutzman of Holmes county, Ohio,
were present. These ministers had been called by only a portion of the church
and many of the members were in Sunday School at the Summit Mills house,
including the ministers who favored Sunday School. After this church service
Abe Yoder asked the membership to remain seated, and these “called” ministers
went into a separate room and ordered the members in one at a time, to give
their views, if they had anything to say. But since many of the satisfied
portion of the church were either not present or objected to appear alone
before these strange ministers, they could get only one side of the story, so
they called another meeting at the same place for the following Friday
afternoon, and then called in Sam Hershberger, Lewis Yoder, and Ed Yoder to get
their stand on the situation. Nothing was accomplished at the meeting, except
that the ministers advised the dissatisfied portion not to withdraw.
(Note: The
last time we counseled with M. M. Beachy about these affairs, we went to Mose
and told him we would fully submit to a committee of strange ministers and
earnestly asked him to also do that; but the sorrowful answer we got was this:
“I have told you before, I would not give myself under other ministers. You may
call them if you want to. I don’t care if you get a whole (railway) carload of
them.” Then our next move was that we called two bishops from the west and two
from the east, but by the time they arrived, Mose had left for a trip and they
did not see him. Submitted by Bishop Joseph J. Yoder.)
(Subnote;
On examination of the material contained in this manuscript by the ministers
and trustees of the Beachy congregation in Somerset
county, it was pointed out that Noah and Joseph J. Yoder made this submissive
offer to Mose Beachy after the retired bishop had asked Mose Beachy’s consent
to use the vacant meeting house with intent to conduct their own church
affairs. The young ministers were evidently unaware of the fact that the aged
bishop had already exposed their plans to withdraw, and seemed surprised when
Bishop Mose Beachy asked them why they were pretending to ask for another
calling of strange ministers after they had already deliberately made a
decision for the future. Even aside from this premature exposure, Mose Beachy
could hardly have been expected to agree to their offer, since the instructions
of “called ministers” had been misconstrued repeatedly on previous occasions.
The trip referred to in the Yoder note was made through a number of western
churches where Bishop Beachy was assured support in his stand against sectarian
avoidance by at least twenty-five ministers. J. B. M.)
May 29th:
Had church again at Amos Yoders for these ministers, then they all went home,
excepting Abe Yoder. Henry J. Mast of Illinois
came through on a visit, and again church was held at Amos Yoders, and the
house was filled to capacity.
June 2nd:
Had church at Niverton for Mast and Yoder. June 12th: Had church at Summit
Mills; church was instructed to observe the life and conduct of the young
applicants. June 26th: Had church at Summit Mills at which Lewis Beachy of Maryland
and a Bontrager of Indiana were present as visitors. Here the members were
asked to remain seated after services, and the congregation was asked whether
they would be willing to do without automobiles. The voice of the church was
taken, and the majority were in favor to do without them. Mose D. Yoder then
announced services for his faction to be held in the house our group was not
using, and we continued in our regular routine. From this date they conducted
their own church affairs with Mose D. Yoder, who had previously retired from
the office of bishop, Noah Yoder, and Joseph Yoder, and by this move have
divided the church by withdrawal. Bishop Mose M. Beachy and Pre. Alvin M.
Beachy (now bishop in Indiana)
served the portion of the church which is now called the BeachyAmishMennoniteChurch.
July 3rd: Had Sunday School at both houses. July 12th: Had church at Summit
Mills. July 17th: Had Sunday School at both houses. July 24th: Had church at
Niverton. July 31st: Had Sunday School at both houses. August 7th: Had church
at Summit Mills. August 9th: Had church at Mose Beachy residence for visiting Kansas
ministers. August 14th: Had church and Sunday School at Niverton. August 21st:
Had church at Niverton, where Christian J. Swatzentruber of Norfolk,
Va., was present. Following this meeting
several of the brethren who had purchased cars were asked to put them away, and
one brother did not agree to this, and was given two weeks in which to consider
the matter. Voice was also taken of the church to baptize the applicants in two
weeks, which was unanimously in favor. After our opponents had fully withdrawn
themselves from us we then, on December
9, 1928, took council of the church, and by a unanimous voice
tolerated automobiles and trucks. Mose Beachy expressed his conviction of the
need to adjust our ways in such matters, if such adjustment does not conflict
with the basic fundamentals of our faith, and said he felt church leaders
should be reasonable in considering things which serve to the people’s welfare
and safety.
Shortly
after this division minister Noah Yoder (of the Yoder side) moved to Dover,
Delaware, and Bishop David Miller of that
place assisted the Somerset group
in communion service and the ordination of two ministers, Gideon Brenneman, in
the fall of 1927, and Bennie A. Fisher on May 20, 1928. In the following year,
1929, Bishop Daniel J. Beachy of Arthur, Illinois,
who had instituted the strict-avoidance plan in his home congregation (Daniel
C. Schlabach succeeded him as bishop) assisted them in communion, and ordained
Joseph J. Yoder as bishop. In 1940 Noah J. Yoder was ordained a minister; Menno
Brenneman a minister in 1944.
On the
Beachy side, Minister Alvin M. Beachy moved to Indiana,
and Minister Norman D. Beachy of Oakland, Md.,
who had formerly affiliated with the Beachy group, was ordained to the ministry
April 27, 1929. Simon L.
Yoder was ordained minister November
11, 1928, and later moved to Norfolk,
Va. On June 15, 1930, this
group affiliated with the John A. Stoltzfus group in Lancaster, Co.,
Pa., and some time later with the
Valentine P. Yoder group in Mercer Co., Pa.
In October, 1938, a group was organized by request, at Plain
City, Ohio, where Emery Yutzy and
Robert Kaufman were ordained to the ministry. Elden Troyer was there ordained
minister on September 27, 1948,
and to bishop April 25, 1949.
In 1939 a group was organized at Bunker Hill, Ohio,
with Abner Schlabach as minister. Jeremiah M. Schlabach of Fredericksburg,
O., was ordained minister at this place on October
30, 1949. Tobe Byler, a minister of Fredericksburg,
Ohio, affiliated with this group of November
13, 1949. In 1940 we merged with the congregation at Norfolk,
Va., with Simon L. Yoder as minister. In
November, 1941, Jacob J. Hershberger was ordained minister. In 1942 Jonas H.
Hershberger was ordained minister; he was also ordained as bishop in the same
year. Ezra E. Troyer, who had been ordained to the ministry at Portsmouth
in 1934, moved to Norfolk section.
In 1946 Jonas C. Swartzentruber was ordained as deacon in the Norfolk
district.
In 1940
Bishop David O. Burkholder of Nappanee, Ind,
affiliated with our group and was therefore expelled by the O. O. group, and
was later reinstated as bishop. A group at Middleburg,
Indiana, affiliated with the Nappanee group
in 1947, and later organized as a separate congregation, at which time David
Bontrager and Moses Bontrager were ordained as ministers. The former was
ordained bishop September 28, 1948.
Eli A. Miller of Topeka, Ind.,
was ordained minister on April 10, 1949.
In 1940 a group was also organized in Howard county, Ind.,
with Levi Sommers as minister. Two ministers, Enos Miller and Ezra Miller, were
ordained on April 18, 1948,
and the latter was ordained bishop May
8, 1949. In Davis
county, Ind., Jacob Gingerich and
William Yoder were ordained minister on June
28, 1948, and Ben Wagler minister October
28, 1949. This group was organized in the summer of 1947. In
October, 1946, a group was organized at Kalona,
Iowa, where Mose Yoder and John Helmouth
were ordained ministers, and in 1948 Bishop Jonathan Miller, who had been
silenced and expelled by the O. O. group, was reinstated and given charge of
this congregation. In June, 1947, a group was organized in Stark county, O.,
with Joe Miller as minister, and on October
12, 1948, Sam Otto was ordained minister, and on May
8, 1949, as Bishop. Alvin Witmer was ordained minister May
6, 1948.
A letter by
Bishop Jacob F. Swartzentruber, written about 1923.
Kalona,
Iowa,
April 19th, Thursday
morning.
Mose M. Beachy,
Elklick (Salisbury),
Penna.
Dear
Brother: May the grace of the Lord, the peace of God, and the communion of the
Holy Spirit be with you now and forever. Amen. Your kind letter mailed last
Monday came to hand with yesterday’s mail. I was indeed glad to receive a
letter from you once more; yet, would much rather have heard that peace and
harmony prevailed in the church which is entrusted to your care. The trouble
seems to be about enforcing the strict avoidance plan against those who leave
your church and go over to the Maryland
church. I am not very much surprised at this, as it is only the fulfillment of
the prediction of Bishop Joe Witmer, who, when told of the move, used the
English phrase, “Now, look out.”
I heard him
say in private and in public that he had helped that church on its feet by
ordaining a bishop, by which they became self-sustaining, but they now have
taken steps to apply strict avoidance on all who go over to the other church,
of which he is not in favor. “Ich bin nicht einig damit,” and they will have
trouble sooner or later. Similar troubles began in the life of Menno Simon, who
died in about 1564. His last years were spent trying to eleviate such trouble,
but he was unable to accomplish his aims and died with a heavy heart. After his
death these conditions grew worse, until they were so bad as they could well
be. Division after division occurred, and most factions aimed at avoiding the
others. Finally in 1632 the eighteen articles of faith were drawn up, with the
aim of healing these sores, which it did to a large extent, but not all the
factions adopted them; yet it was the dawn of the day of greater harmony and
peace. If you read carefully the last clause of the sixteenth article, which
reads: “The church must put away from her those that are corrupt, be it in
doctrine or life, and none other.” Here you have the foundation of this peace
treaty. It does not definitely say so, yet it is plain to me that the intent of
this clause was to put away with the avoidance of those whose only offense was
such transfer. The Mennonites evade mention of this in their history, perhaps
since it is a disgrace to the church’s history to relate that they were at one
time so desperately disunited, yet I find it in histories written by well
informed historians of those times. This proves that such application of
avoidance is not new, but as far as I can find it has always proved a failure
and played havoc wherever it was used this way. But now this plan has been
adopted by unanimous voice of the church over which you have been ordained to
preside as bishop, so I am told; this says to me, hands off; yet to a limited extent only. You ask for advice in your
letter. I think you asked me the same thing once before, and I think I dodged
your request that time, as that unanimous voice kept saying to me: hands off. I
think I shall come nearer fulfilling your request this time. I shall do this on
another sheet, but will say here that I woke up soon after 12
o’clock and have not slept since. I studied and prayed over this
tedious matter quite a bit, and by the urging of my wife I concluded to give
you better satisfaction this time. True Christian love, charity and forbearance
demand that we respect our neighbor’s rights, conscience, and convictions as
much as our own, yet our conscience is not infallible. Much depends on what we
are taught; if this teaching is infallible, then our conscience is, and only
then, a safe dictator to follow. Everyone thinks himself to be in the right,
and yet many often change theories and convictions. Now, this being the case, I
think a safe and sane way would be to give everyone the liberty to follow the
dictates of their own conscience, allowing those who think they would do wrong
if they did not avoid, to avoid them; and, on the other hand, those who feel
they would do wrong in avoiding, do not insist that they must. Be patient and
bear one with another, come together and commune together and give the Holy
Spirit a chance to teach and work within us, bringing us closer together as we
grow in grace and knowledge in the will of the Lord. If I understand that
unanimous voice of the church, this procedure would not interfere with the
issue in question, if they are all agreed, but no provisions whatever have been
made for anyone who might change his convictions, which is likely to occur with
the best of us. Now, dear brother, you may not be able to hold the church
together by following the above method; but if you take this stand, you can
fell that you have done your duty in trying to compromise. Compromising is not
always best, but in this case it would be, and is the only thing that will hold
the church together. I well know you are in close quarters, and to do this you
must take a firm stand, be easy, mild, and loving. By all means do not use
harsh words or expressions, trying with the help of God to be an example of
mildness, forebearance, meekness and humility, inducing the members to the
same. Matters may look dark to you, and I take from your letter you fear you
would not accomplish much. It is right that this feeling should come; but I
think with the above plan you can feel yourself on safe ground, and on the
Lord’s side; and if the church has not drifted away from God too far through
selfishness, the Lord will be with you, bless your efforts, and work wonders
which will surprise you. Let the Lord use you as an instrument in His hand.
We are
having a few nice warm days now. Had a cold and backward spring so far. A good rain
would be appreciated. We are improving in health; the Lord be praised for this
kindness toward us. We expect to have council meeting Sunday, and if all goes
well, communion in two weeks; will likely ordain a minister. Help us to pray
that the good Lord may bless and guide us in this important undertaking. We
mean to pray for you also in our humble and weak way. I would be pleased to
hear from you occasionally.
J. F. Swartzendruber
P. S., I
failed to mention above that neither side has a strict and definite “Thus saith
the Lord,” on which to base itself, hence I consider it safe to compromise.
___________________________
A Letter By Bishop Daniel C. Schlabach
Arthur,
Illinois
December
19, 1939
Mose M. Beachy
Salisbury, Penna.
Dear
unforgotten friend: Hope you are all well. We are all usually well, which is a
blessing more so than we can realize. Well you are in my mind so much that I
cannot help myself, and will try and write a few lines with the help of God,
where all good gifts come from. I fell it my duty to write as you know we are
well acquainted with each other, and the step you made is wonderful to me and
the Illinois people, that is in
church matters. Years ago no one could have made me believe that Mose M. Beachy
would ever make such a step in church matters, but Satan is after us all. Just
to think what your parents would say if they had the opportunity to view over
his (their) son’s church work. It is just awful for us to think the matter
over. Now you know that you left the Old Order Amish church—how can you talk
anything in your church when you yourself are not obeying what you promised,
and that is not obeying your parents. I would not take the step that Mose M.
Beachy took for all that he could offer me. Now the most attractive machine to
young people and also old people you have in your church, that is the
automobile. We heard some town people that have them say that he has one, but
if every man that has one would take his machine to the gulf and dump them into
the sea, his machine would go too. Then he said they are the biggest piece of
nuisance that was ever made in the U. S. There was a record made of how many
people were killed in one year by autos; yes, more than were killed in the
world war; now Mose Beachy has them and also Herschberger in his church. Now
you make it your business to go from place to place and spread these autos in
the churches. Now to make it plain to you: just take Cornelius Beachy’s there
in Madison; well what! Mose M.
Beachy got two or three of Cornelius Beachy’s children to side in with him
about the autos, and so from one place to the other. Do you believe you are
doing the right thing? You know Cornelius doesn’t like that, and what is Mose
M. Beachy doing? Why is he helping them in leading them away from the Old Order
Amish people. You may think in that what you want, but you are helping them
along away from the Oild Order. You are one of them, and you cannot get out;
you are the man making a disturbance. A man does not realize how much
disturbance he is making. Yes; you may say that they would have gone if I would
not have helped them: but Mose, you helped them in their disobedient step they
made, and you know the disobedient step you made is not the good Spirit leading
you that way, but on the broad way that leads to the place of everlasting fire
prepared for the devil and his angels. Now you know you are not helping to keep
up that Old Order of the Amish church which you promised to do with an oath to
God and the church on your knees. Now, those deeds will go with you, day after
day you will carry those deeds: you made the step. Well, I wrote some, and will
say as the old prophet says: “As one iron sharpens another, so will the mind of
one man sharpen the mind of another.” So read the fifth chapter of Acts, it
gives us something to think about.
Daniel C. Schlabach.
___________________________
A Reply to the Above Letter by M. M. Beachy
Salisbury,
Penna.
December
27, 1939
Bishop Daniel C. Schlabach
Arthur, Illinois
Well,
Daniel: Your letter has been read and reviewed, and the more I read it the more
resentful I feel toward you for writing so many untruths. In regard to the
charge that I left the Old Order Amish, I want you to know that I am as Amish
as you are. Do you not know that in our grandfather’s time they had none of the
modern conveniences such as grain binders, manure spreaders, hay loaders, and
many other things which were allowed by the church from time to time? When
these came into common use my father allowed them rather than have contentions
in his church. Do you mean to say, Daniel, that he left the Amish because he
took steps to maintain peace in his congregation? No, he lived and died in the
same faith you and I hold to. When gas engines, cream separators, milking
machines, and other such things came up for consideration, Bishop Mose D. Yoder
allowed them. Tractors and other such things were later also allowed. I know of
a certain sister who would not take part in communion a number of times because
she was not in favor of topbuggies and cream separators; but Mose D. Yoder paid
no attention to her and she finally came along.
Would you
say that Mose D. Yoder left the Old Order because he allowed one thing after
another? Now that cars and trucks have come you have drawn the line between
owning and using them. How can you condemn any medium of transportation, and
yet hire it for your service without condemning yourself? Suppose you read
Romans 2:1-11. It was very much against my will that automobiles came into the
church, but some of our people began buying them, and we took church counsel,
and they were tolerated by the unanimous voice of the church. I felt unable to
answer at the judgment day for expelling a member for owning a car, when we were
all using them more or less. Do you recall that Eli Tice took you to church
services at the Joe Yoder home? How can you, then, condemn us the way you have,
when you ride in a car yourself. I think it is very urgent that you make some
kind of restitution for writing such a letter. I will expose this letter to
your people, unless you make satisfaction. You could probably come in better
than we can come out just at this time. I had hoped some of your group would
come to the funeral of Simon Yoder.
You wrote
in your letter I had two or there of C. S. Beachy’s children to side in with
me, which is untrue. You also wrote that I make it my business to go from place
to place and spread the automobiles, which is also untrue. The folks in Madison
County, Ohio, requested Aid concerning tractor difficulties. When we came out
their local ministers commenced working on the affair and we refused to
intervene, but went home again, hoping their trouble could be settled among
themselves. As you likely know, they allowed tractors for belt use, but could
not use them in the field. Later they called us again, and we first of all
interviewed their bishops. Bishop C. D. Beachy told me that they were unable to
do anything for them, and that they must look for themselves, whereupon we took
them into our fellowship. Now they all use their tractors in the fields, even
those who opposed it most. I know of an Amish bishop who expelled a member for
getting an automobile. He then joined the Mennonite church and the bishop
employed him as a chauffeur, and made an extended trip through the far western
states. Do you think that is justice? Is it a light to the world or a salt of
the earth? Does it show a conviction that a car is condemned in the sight of
God? Daniel, you have judged and condemned us. You have asserted that the evil
spirit was leading us, and that you were writing a few lines with the help of
God. Are these motives in “one accord” with the Scriptures (as Philippians 2)?
(If you cannot come in) I hope, if I live, to be in Illinois
by this spring. I cannot lightly dismiss such severe accusations, but feel it
our duty to one another to comply with Matthew 18:15-17, meeting face to face
and humbly talk this matter over. Will close in sorrow.
Mose M. Beachy and Wife
___________________________
An Authentic Document Pertaining to Sectarian Avoidance
(Note: Had
all our churches been content to continue in the rules laid down by the
following “Meidung Ordnungsbrief,” they might have spared themselves much unpleasant
publicity throughout the country, and needless scruples among themselves. For
an account of the proceedings of the Ohio
“Meidung” case of 1947, send 25c to the Mennonite Historical Society, GoshenCollege, Goshen,
Indiana, for a reprint of the article
“Caesar and the Meidung,” published in the April, 1949, issue of the M. Q. R.,
J. B. M.)
___________________________
Resolution of the Ministers Called to Holmes County,
Ohio, in the Year 1913
We will
first say with the Apostle Peter: To them that have obtained like precious
faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, we
wish you grace and peace.
We, the
undersigned, herewith testify that we have been called by the nine Old Order
Amish congregations of Holmes county, Ohio, and the adjoining counties, to
assist them with the help of the Lord to arrive at a unanimous voice concerning
members who transfer from their church to other churches with whom they no
longer fellowship, yet recognize as nonresistant Christian churches.
First: When
ministers and the church are aware of members who consider withdrawing from the
church with intention to affiliate with the churches referred to; with the help
of the Lord, they shall make all sincere effort to restrain this member from
making such transfer, by brotherly admonition and the word of God.
Second:
When this has been done to church members who nevertheless make such transfer;
we resolve that this concludes our obligation, and we further commit the matter
to them, such church, and to God.
Third: When
a disobedient church member has been excommunicated with counsel of the church
and the word of God, and is later received according to Gospel standards into
fellowship of the churches referred to, we resolve that ban and avoidance
toward them by the Old Order church shall also be lifted (ended).
The
original draft of this document signed by:
Peter
Wagler
Andrew
J. Mast
Joseph
D. Schrock.
Abraham
Knepp
Letters By Bishop Eli J. Bontrager
Shipshewana,
Indiana, 1926.
Daniel J. Swartzentruber
Oakland, Maryland,
R. R. 2.
Dear
Brother Swartzentruber: Greetings in the Master’s Name!
I received
a letter from Pre. Alvin M. Beachy quite a while ago, in which he states that
he rather thinks we men would be called back to make our work or advices plain;
that there seems to be a misunderstanding. I can hardly see how it could be
misunderstood, but I suppose we could have made it plainer than we did. I, in
particular, am too forgetful and unworthy to bring a decision before a
congregation, and then the others did not say much either. Ben Beiler was a
little bothered the last day because of the death of his grandchild. Ben said
several times while we were alone counseling about the matter, that their stand
on the “Meidung” question is so old that it has outgrown itself, or words to
that effect. So he, or they, thought too they had better take the council of
the church in every case that comes up. I think they intended to advise just
the same as Joe and I did, and if I understand them right, they do the same in Lancaster
county; that is, as we advised, viz., every case that comes up that seems to
need attention or counsel, for the ministers to counsel over the case, and if
they decide that something should be done, then for them to decide what should
be done, and after they have come to a decision, then, and only then, bring it before the church, and with their own
decision or opinion as a Vorschlag (motion), take the voice or counsel of the
church, and thus decide what to do. In this way, if they cannot decide that
something should be done, there is nothing to do; and if they cannot come to a
decision what to do, then the matter cannot be brought before the congregation.
If the case is serious enough to be taken up, they no doubt can also agree on
what to do about it: but if they cannot agree, they had better drop the matter,
unless, or until, they can agree, and not allow that they hinder their going
ahead with other church matters or let it interfere with their peace. We said
we would not want to give them an opinion what to do with any certain case, or
change their way of dealing, or deciding any certain cases, but to take up all
cases as I have outlined above. Naturally, this procedure may automatically
change some foregone conclusions in matters as their former way of dealing with
such as choose to worship with other congregations; but if they agree to deal
with such cases as they formerly did, no change will be made, and this is what
we meant by not changing it. But if by dealing with (individual) cases as we
have advised, they come to a different decision than formerly, or cannot come
to a decision at all, that will change it, yet we will not; we will leave it to
them. Alvin wrote that Noah Yoder now says that, according to our advice, they
must deal with such cases as formerly, and that, in order to do differently
they would need the council of the church to change this way of procedure. It
never occurred to me that anyone could construe this. How could they do as they
formerly did, that is, pronounce “Meidung” on anyone without counceling with
the church, and still follow our advice, when we know that the ministers as
well as the congregation does not agree to this. I hardly think they will get
us back there, but I am sorry that things stand as they do with them. No church
can get along for any length of time without doing as we advised; to take the
counsel of the church in every individual case. Can a church be made to accept
a matter, to which the majority does not agree? Certainly not, and Somerset
is an example of this. When such cases come up, as it seems they now have, why
could they not permit all those whose conscience bids them to observe Meidung,
observe it, and the others have patience with them, and, if they cannot agree
to pronounce Meidung in such cases, why should the others not have patience
with those who do not observe it? If they have patience with one another it
(Meidung) should not interfere with their peace and hop and charity. It was
once suggested that we might mention this to the congregation, but we decided
to withhold the suggestion. I am sorry that we could not express ourselves
clearly enough that no misunderstanding could occur. Your humble brother, Eli J. Bontrager.
—————————
Shipshewana,
Indiana.
December
24, 1949.
John B. Mast,
Weatherford, Okla.
Dear Brother:
Yours of
December 20th at hand. I fear I cannot five you much information on
the subject in question.
Joseph D.
Schrock and I of the west, and Ben Beiler and Dave Beachy (Gideon Stoltzfus) of
the east, if my memory serves me right, were called at three different times,
to try to adjust the difficulties between the O. O. Amish group at Grantsville,
Md. I do not recall at this time what the
main issues seemed to be, but I do recall that Noah and Joe Yoder told us at or
after the last call was answered, that “Meidung” was not the main thing that
kept Mose Beachy from working with them in a satisfactory way, but they did not
say what the main issue was. I, however, sensed an intimation that they felt
Beachy did not want to work with them anymore on their former modes and
practices.
After I
came home and reflected on the matter, I decided to write a letter to the
ministers (I think Alvin Beachy had moved away by that time), admonishing them
to remain together by all means, and mentioned some of the difficulties and
inconveniences that would result from a division in the church. However, being
aware of the fact Mose was the one that seemed to desire a division, I later
wrote a personal letter to him, trying my best to influence him to work with
the others and keep the congregation together.
I have
copies of many letters that I have written, and that I have received, but I
have no copies of the above mentioned letters to the ministers. Neither have I
the letter received from Alvin Beachy to which you refer. In fact I do not
recall having received such a letter. If you can get anything of value out of
the above statements, you are welcome to use them over my signature.
Regarding
the “Meidung Ordnungsbrief” to which you refer, this was set up for the Holmes
county Old Order Amish churches, and the procedures laid down in this letter is
the way our old bishop, David S. Kaufman, worked, and all the other districts
here, and in the Marshall and Davis county districts; also Illinois and, as far
as I know, all other western districts except the “Schweizer” in Allen and
Adams county, Indiana. Holmes county had been working the same way (as the
western churches) until the time when these four brethren were called to help
them in 1913. At that time much dissatisfaction had been worked up, then this
call was made, and they put the matter exactly as it had previously been, and
had the consent of every district to work that way, excepting the Sam Yoder
faction.
Yours,Eli
J. Bontrager.
Please note
The printed copyright on the text
is expired by copyright law, and is therefore in the public domain. If the
rights to this document have been renewed, and the document is not in the
public domain, please notify the copier. Otherwise, this document is free to
distribute with one stipulation: no monetary profit be made from this pamphlet