Return to the Beachy
Amish Mennonite Homepage
THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
THE BEACHY AMISH MENNONITE CHURCHES
ALVIN J. BEACHY*
- Major Reasons
for the 1927 Division
The events
which led to the division of 1927 in the (Casselman) River, Pennsylvania, Old
Order Amish congregation had their origin in the incidents of 1895 and 1896.
After the division of 1895 Bishop Moses D. Yoder, leader of the conservative
wing, gained the unanimous consent of his congregation to place under the
strict ban all who left to join the Maryland or Miller congregation after a
certain date. It has already been noted that Yoder was able to persuade his congregation
to take this position only because he either deliberately misrepresented the
advice received from Bishop Joseph Witmer through correspondence or grossly
misunderstood this advice.
In support
of Bishop M. D. Yoder’s position it should be said that the weight of earlier
tradition, both within the state of Pennsylvania and in Somerset County, was on
the side of the strict ban for all who left the Amish to unite with any other
denomination. This had been the first article in the Discipline of 1809.[1] In the Discipline of
1837, which was drawn up at a conference consisting only of the ministers of
the Amish congregations within Somerset County, the importance of the strict
ban as a means of maintaining a vigorous church also receives first place. The conference
noted that decline had set in because of the neglect of God’s ordinance in the
ban, and decided that thereafter the ban should be observed without regard of
person whether man or woman.[2] Apparently the
ministers who attended the 1837 conference felt that there had been a tendency
to be too lenient when cases arose where women became subjects for the strict
ban.
There are
also references to other Amish ministers’ conferences held in Somerset County
at which very strict action was taken in regard to receiving members into the
Amish Church from other denominations. Jacob Swartzendruber in his epistle
addressed to the Amish ministers’ conference of 1865 refers to a ministers’
conference held in the Glades, at which Amish ministers from Lancaster County
were also present.[3] While no records of
this 1830 conference have been found, it is almost certain that in 1830, or
perhaps a little earlier, an Amish ministers’ conference was held in the Glade
congregation, which Amish ministers from Lancaster County also attended. This
is known from an autobiography of David Beiler, an Amish minister, who lived in
Lancaster County from the time of his birth in 1786 until his death in 1871.
Beiler’s autobiography was written in 1862. In this he refers to a ministers’ conference
which was held in the Glades (Klatz) approximately thirty-four years earlier,
which would have been around the year 1828.[4] This may be the
conference to which Jacob Swartzendruber referred in his 1865 epistle. Herein
he mentions Christian Yoder, Sr., whom this study has revealed to have been the
first resident Amish bishop of Somerset County and the author of the resolution
which forbade the reception of Mennonites into fellowship in the Amish Church
unless they were first rebaptized.[5]
Bishop Moses
D. Yoder may have been aware of this tradition of strictness among the Amish in
the Somerset County of the past and possibly felt that he was contending for
the “faith of the fathers” by reinstating the ban in his congregation. Whatever
his method or motive may have been, his success was destined to be rather
short-lived. He had been ordained as bishop of the Pennsylvania district of the
River congregation in 1895, and by 1916 ill health forced him to pass the reins
of leadership to a younger and more tolerant man. This was Moses M. Beachy,
third son of Bishop Manassa Beachy, who had preceded Yoder as the spiritual
leader of the Pennsylvania Amish in the Casselman River region. Moses Beachy
had been ordained as a minister in Yoder’s congregation in 1912, and four years
later was ordained to the office of bishop. Moses D. Yoder now became a sort of
“bishop emeritus” until his death in 1927, but the actual leadership of the
congregation was in the hands of Bishop M. M. Beachy after 1916.
The storm
which had probably been brewing since 1905[6] when R. M. Beachy
discovered that Yoder had misinterpreted or misunderstood the advice from
Witmer concerning the strict ban broke soon after the new bishop came into
power. Fortunately the records of that storm are fairly clear. The incident
which brought the storm into the open was the withdrawal of a Mr. and Mrs. John
D. Yoder from Bishop Beachy’s congregation to the Maryland or Miller
congregation, which in 1912 had affiliated with the Conservative Amish
Mennonite Conference. The couple was called back to a congregational meeting to
explain their withdrawal, and gave as their reason the use of the strict ban
against those who left to join other churches when there was no other
accusation against them.[7] The exact date of
their withdrawal is not known, but the first attempt to heal the dispute which
arose as a result of their removal was made in 1925. However, the difficulty
had existed at least two years prior to the first attempt to resolve the
differences.
A letter
written on April 19, 1923, by Bishop J. F. Swartzendruber of Kalona, Iowa, to
Bishop M. M. Beachy reveals that the latter had previously written to
Swartzendruber before this, and that on the first inquiry the latter evaded the
question.[8] In the letter of April
19 Swartzendruber explains that his reason for evading the question earlier was
the unanimous vote of the congregation, secured while M. D. Yoder was bishop,
to place under the strict ban all who left to join the Maryland or Miller
congregation. Swartzendruber knew his Mennonite and Amish history well enough
to know that the strict ban had been the cause of much strife during the days
of Menno Simons and Dirk Philips. He contends in this letter that Article 16 of
the Dordrecht Confession intended to do away with the avoidance of those whose
only offense was going to another faction. Swartzendruber states in this letter
that, so far as he knew from the study of history, the use of the strict ban
against those whose only offense was to join another denomination had always
brought failure and havoc wherever tried.[9] The fact that Bishop
Beachy’s congregation had formerly voted unanimously to place under the strict
ban all who left to join the Maryland congregation troubled Swartzendruber and
he did not see how this earlier vote of the congregation could be entirely set
aside. It had, he felt, been the vote of a group of believers who were obeying
their conscience. But Swartzendruber was also aware that one’s conscience may
change over a period of years, and the advice which he gave to M. M. Beachy on
a page attached to the letter of April, 1923 is a fine combination of Christian
charity and common sense. A fill copy of the attached sheet is here included
for that reason.
True Christian love, charity, and forbearance demands
of us that we respect and regard our neighbors’ rights, conscience and
convictions as much as our own; and yet our conscience is not infallible, it is
as much as we are taught or educated; if this teaching is infallible then our
conscience is—and only then is it a safe dictator to follow, but everybody
believes himself to be right, and will sometimes change theories and
convictions.
Now this being the case, I think a safe and sane way
would be to give the liberty and let each one follow the dictates of his or her
own conscience; letting those that think they would do wrong if they would not
avoid them, avoid them, and on the other hand, those that feel that they did
wrong if they did avoid them; do not insist that they should.
Be patient and bear one with another, come together and
commune together, and give the Holy Spirit a chance to educate and work in our
hearts, bring 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
would not interfere with it at all, since they all agreed to it, but there was
no provision made whatever, if they should change their 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 did your duty in trying to compromise. Compromising is not always
best, but in this case it would be, and it 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 and expressions, trying with the help of God to be an example of
mildness, forbearance, meekness, and humility; and induce the members to the
same.
Matters may look dark to you and I take from your letter
that 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 bless your efforts, and may work
wonders which will surprise you. Let the Lord do it and only use you as an
instrument in His hand.[10]
As time
went on and the local ministers were unable to resolve this dispute themselves,
Amish ministers from other localities were called in to help solve the
difficulty, namely, Ben Beiler and Gideon Stoltzfus from Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, Eli J. Bontrager from Shipshewana, Indiana, and Joseph Schrock
from Arthur, Illinois. These four men came to Somerset County sometime during
the year 1925 at the request of Bishop M. M. Beachy and his coministers Noah M.
Yoder and Joseph J. Yoder. Two of these four men, Stoltzfus and Schrock, have
since died,[11] and Beiler is
presumably dead, as letters addressed to him have brought no reply. Bishop
Bontrager, however, is alive and working actively in the Old Order Amish Church
in Lagrange County, Indiana. An extant letter which he wrote to D. J.
Swartzendruber of Oakland, Maryland, in either 1926 or 1927 clearly indicated
the advice that was given to the Somerset County Amish by these four men on
their 1925 visit. In this letter to Swartzendruber Bontrager says that he had
received
quite a long letter from A.
M. Beachy (at that time a minister in the River congregation) some time ago in
which he stated that he rather thinks we would be called back to make our work
or advice plain, as there seemed to be some misunderstanding.[12]
Bontrager then goes on to say that he can hardly see how
their advice could have been misunderstood, though he supposes that they could
have made it plainer. He informs Swartzendruber that he is sure the four men
who were called were all agreed that a blanket ban for all who left the
Pennsylvania congregation to join the Maryland congregation was no longer
workable. Their counsel, he says, was to consider each case separately, and
then decide what should be done in a particular case, rather than to abide by
one ruling which was to be applied in every case. This advice was to be carried
out in the following four steps:
1. In every
case that arises which seems to need attention, the ministers should first
confer with each other to see if it is their judgment that something should be
done.
2. If the
ministers themselves think something should be done, then they should first
come to a decision among themselves as to what that action should be.
3. Only
after the ministers have agreed among themselves should they bring a particular
case before the congregation, with their own decision or opinion regarded as a
recommendation for the course of action taken by the congregation.
4. If the
ministers themselves cannot agree, nothing should be said to the congregation,
such lack of agreement among the ministers probably indicating that the case
was not serious enough to demand the attention of the entire congregation.[13]
Bontrager
and the other three ministers were apparently aware of the earlier unanimous
vote of the congregation to place under the ban all who left to join the
Maryland congregation; and they were also troubled by it. They were aware that
the four steps of procedure as outlined above might possibly mean some
deviation from the method prescribed by the unanimous vote obtained while Moses
D. Yoder was still bishop; but they refused to accept any responsibility for
the changes that might occur, as the following lines from the letter plainly
show:
We said that we would not want to give them an opinion
with any certain cases, or change their ways of dealing or deciding certain
cases. But to take all cases as I have outlined above, and naturally by
proceeding like that, it may automatically change some of their foregone
conclusions in such matters as their former way of dealing with such as choose
to worship with some other congregation. But in case they agreed to deal with
such cases as they formerly did no change will be made. And that is what we
meant by not changing it. But if by dealing with the cases as we have advised,
they come to a different decision than formerly or cannot decide to make a
decision at all, that will change it. But we will not. We leave it to them.[14]
Thus the
advice given to the Somerset County, Pennsylvania, Amish by these four visiting
brethren was very similar to that given to Bishop M. M. Beachy by J. F.
Swartzendruber of Kalona, Iowa, in his letter of April 19, 1923. Later events
prove that the course outlined by the advice received from these two quarters
was the course which M. M. Beachy tried to follow in clearing up the
difficulties that had arisen in connection with the “John D. Yoder Case,” as it
came to be known. However, he was prevented from following this course of
action by his coministers, Noah M. Yoder and Joseph J. Yoder, who were inclined
to favor the strict position of the “Bishop emeritus” Moses D. Yoder. These men
wanted Mr. and Mrs. John Yoder to be placed under the strict ban, but as the
congregation refused to give its unanimous consent, Bishop Beachy refused to
comply with their request.[15]
In his
letter of 1926 or 1927 to D. J. Swartzendruber of Oakland, Maryland, E. J.
Bontrager quotes A. M. Beachy as saying that Noah M. Yoder insisted that the
advice of the four visiting ministers had been to deal with those who left to
join other congregations exactly as they had before, i.e., place them under the
strict ban, and that to do differently they would need the unanimous vote of
the congregation. Bontrager says, “It never occurred to me that any one could
so construe this.”[16]
Bishop
Beachy tried for a full year to win his fellowministers to the more tolerant
view outlined in the J. F. Swartzendruber letter and to that given in the
advice of the four visiting brethren. When he finally saw that his coministers
intended to be as unyielding as Jacob Ammann himself had been, he decided to
proceed as the congregation had been advised to, without the consent of Noah
Yoder and Joseph Yoder or of Moses D. Yoder. On October 31, 1926, he made known
his decision to the congregation.[17] Fortunately a summary
of what he said on that date, as well as the reaction of his fellow ministers
to his intended course of action, has been preserved. That summary is included
here with such editing as seemed necessary for the clear conveyance of the
thought contained in the original for those not familiar with Pennsylvania
German idioms.
On October 31, 1926, Mose took the privilege to state how
he intended to “keep house” (see footnote) or lead the church. He stated that
he was blamed very much for not punishing the disobedient, and that he knew
many things had gotten into the church during M. D. Yoder’s time which were not
permitted earlier; and that the same was true during his father’s and Joel
Beachy’s time as bishops. He also stated that M. D. Yoder did not punish one
party that he knows of and wondered why allowing some things to go unpunished
was so much worse than it had been previously. He also said that in his
father’s time as well as before there were some prohibitions that were not
obeyed, but the offenders went unpunished. He said the men who were called to
deal with the John D. Yoder case refused to touch it and he calls the case
closed. Why not leave it to them and to God in regard to changing churches, he
asked, rather than to place them under the ban and still leave it to them and
to God, since we have no direct Scripture for such action? He said that he
would try to keep the church in order so far as other ordinances were
concerned, and that now was as good a time as any for those who had things that
were forbidden to get rid of them. He did not elaborate on what these were but
mentioned that some of the men were cutting their hair rather short, and that
the women were wearing short fringes on their bonnets. He said that things
which were just as good one way as another, we should keep as we had them
before. He said that in these trying times he thought it best not to impose
severe punishment upon anyone, and that Eli Bontrager had told him and L. M.
Beachy that they would cause a split in the church unless they allowed the John
D. Yoder case to drop. Mose said he would rather be a little too easy than to
punish without a right to do so and drive people away from the church. He said
he wonders how many who were members of the church would be worthy of keeping
under the ban those who left, if they examined their own lives closely. He said
that he thought we should be careful and that the other ministers might express
themselves if they wished.[18]
The
reaction of Bishop Beachy’s coministers to the above proposal was decidedly in
the negative. M. D. Yoder, who by this time was very feeble, simply stated that
he did not understand the proposal. Noah M. Yoder, who was the son of M. D.
Yoder, stated that in his opinion Bishop Beachy was far from following the
instructions of the four visiting ministers by bringing this matter before the
congregation. He also said that he had not known that the presiding bishop
intended to bring the matter before the congregation, and that he did not know
what he himself should say. He said that the congregation probably thought that
the ministers had counseled over the matter and were in agreement with the procedure
as outlined by the bishop, which was not the case.
Bishop
Beachy then asked N. M. Yoder not to say that he did not know the matter was to
be brought before the congregation, since he had told them during the time the
ministers were in the council room on that very day (see footnote). Under
questioning from Bishop Beachy, N. M. Yoder then admitted that this was true.
Joseph J. Yoder then said that the visiting brethren had been hindered from
doing anything with the Yoder case while they were present. Bishop Beachy
replied that he had insisted that the visiting ministers should first clear up
that case, and that thereafter he would be willing to consider anything
necessary for the pace and progress of the church. When the visiting brethren
refused to commit themselves on the John D. Yoder case, Bishop Beachy refused
to commit themselves on the John D. Yoder case, Bishop Beachy refused to allow
any other matters to come up for consideration.[19]
Noah M.
Yoder was right when he insisted that the presiding bishop was not acting in
accord with the advice of the brethren Beiler, Bontrager, Schrock, and
Stoltzfus by presenting his view to the congregation. Beachy must have known
his coministers well enough by that time to realize that they would never agree
to his proposals. His announcement to the ministers as to what he intended to
tell the congregation on October 31, 1926, seems to have been in the nature of
a declaration of intended action, rather than an attempt to gain a unified
approach.
On the
other hand, it must be remembered that Beachy’s coministers, by their refusal
to compromise, had driven him into a corner where he had either to accept the
decision which the congregation had made while M. D. Yoder was bishop or to
strike out in a new direction. His decision to appeal directly to the
congregation was therefore not hasty or ill considered, but rather the action
of a man who refused to be maneuvered into a position where his own conduct, as
well as that of his congregation, should be determined by a decision of the
past which time had proved unwise.
At the
conclusion of the October, 1926, meeting Bishop M. M. Beachy announced that
after the next church service, which was to be held in the Flag Run
meetinghouse on November 14, there would be a counsel meeting (see footnote) of
the members to decide whether or not the congregation should hold a communion
service. C. J. Swartzendruber from Kempsville, Virginia, and D. J.
Swartzendruber from Oakland, Maryland, were the visiting ministers at the
November 14 service to assist in the conduct of the counsel meeting. At the
close of the church service, after those who were not yet members of the
congregation had been dismissed, Bishop Beachy again addressed himself to the
congregation.
He mentioned many things as he outlined to the
congregation the manner in which he intended to “keep house.” He again
mentioned that some men were cutting their hair too short, and that some of the
women were wearing gloves in the summer time. He said that these things had been
prohibited before and that they should remain so now. He said that since the
automobile would draw the line with the Old Order churches he could not allow
them, nor short dresses and waists among the women of the congregation. Women’s
shawls, however, which had previously been worn in three-cornered style, might
now be worn four-cornered, since that would not interfere with their fellowship
with the Old Order churches.
After Mose had thus expressed himself to the membership,
the vote was taken on whether or not they wished to observe the communion
service. But before the vote was taken Mose again told the members that he did
not intend to place Mr. and Mrs. John D. Yoder under the ban, and that the
people must use their own judgment in their attitude toward the Yoders. He said
that so far as he was concerned they had the liberty to unite with the other
church if they cared to do so.[20]
To the
proposed course of action as outlined by Bishop Beachy above, Noah Yoder and
Joseph Yoder would not agree. Joseph Yoder intimated that he thought there were
other issues than the use of the strict ban which should be investigated before
going ahead with the communion service. Under the circumstances he said that he
felt it would be wrong to continue with plans for the Lord’s Supper, and he was
supported in his position by Noah M. Yoder. Despite the non-co-operative
attitude of his coministers, Bishop Beachy proceeded to take the vote of the
congregation on whether or not they wished that a communion service should be
observed. Ten of the brethren said that under the circumstances they would not
participate. Thirteen of the brethren said they were neutral on the question,
and twenty-one of the brethren expressed a desire for the communion service.
Among the women there was no objection whatever to holding the communion
service as proposed by the bishop.[21]
Though a
clear a majority of the congregation had expressed themselves in favor of the
communion service, no service was announced by the bishop for the fall of 1926.
The stalemate was allowed to continue until the following spring. Then on April
3, 1926, at a counsel meeting held after a worship service in the Flag Run
meetinghouse, Bishop M. M. Beachy reiterated what he had said earlier in regard
to how he thought he ought to “keep house.” At this meeting the vote of the
membership was not taken nor was there any announcement of the communion
service. One week later, on April 10, 1927, an additional church service was
held at the Summit Mills meetinghouse, and at that service communion was
announced for Sunday, April 17, at the same place. When the worshipers came
together for this occasion, they were prevented from observing the Lord’s
Supper as had been announced because of dissatisfaction among the group,
notably those who still wanted the strict ban applied to all who left to join
the Maryland or Miller congregation. However, Bishop Beachy announced that on
the following Sunday, April 24, 1927, a communion
service would be held at the Flag Run meetinghouse. When this service was
finally held, only sixty-three members participated or slightly more than half
of the membership.[22]
B. MINOR REASONS FOR THE DIVISION
From the
presentation of the foregoing events it is clearly evident that the major
reason for the differences that finally led to the division was the insistence
of Joseph and Noah Yoder that the strict ban be used on all who left to unite
with the Maryland congregation. This is true also in the opinion of Eli J.
Bontrager, who says in a letter of March 2, 1950,
As it was some twenty-five years ago that we were called
to Somerset County, matters seem a bit hazy now. However, I think your
informant was right that the real
cause of the trouble was the strict ban.[23]
There were,
however, minor differences which came into the open only after the communion
service of April 24, 1927. Possibly Bishop Beachy felt that the opposition had
indicated by their absence that they had no intention of compromising their
views on the strict ban. Thereafter he apparently gave up hope of a
reconciliation and allowed some innovations which he had previously tried to
hold in check.
At a
meeting held on November 14, 1926, which was held in the Flag Run meetinghouse,
the bishop was still trying to keep his congregation in full fellowship with
the Old Order Amish churches and stated that he could no permit the use of
automobiles, because that would alienate the Old Order group.[24] After April, 1927, he
abandoned this idea. Now some of the other issues emerge that had been
constantly in the background but which had not previously been discussed.
Bontrager in the letter referred to above also says, “To say that the ban was
the real or only cause of the division is probably not quite correct.”[25] He states further
that when the four ministers, Beiler, Bontrager, Schrock, and Stoltzfus, were
in Somerset County, Noah M. Yoder had intimated to him that there were other
issues besides the strict ban, but that what they were did not become clear to
him until after the split, and that in his opinion what N. M. Yoder wished to
convey was this: that M. M. Beachy wanted unrestricted use of electricity,
automobiles, and perhaps a few other things.[26]
This is also the opinion of Bishop Joseph J. Yoder of Meyersdale, Pennsylvania,
who says in a letter of March 3, 1950,
According to my estimation and knowledge by going through
that sorrowful split, the best I can give as the cause of it was that the more
liberal class was dissatisfied with the former church rules, in not only one
matter or other, but in a number of different affairs wanted more liberty,
until it came to a split; and the changes made at that time and since is plain
evidence of the cause.[27]
Probably
neither Bontrager nor Yoder is quite fair in saying that Beachy wanted
unrestricted use of electricity and the automobile prior to the communion
service of 1927. After that date, however, innovations occurred in Bishop
Beachy’s congregation with such swiftness that it seems incredible to suppose they
had not been under contemplation by some of his members beforehand.
- THE ORGANIZATION OF
SUNDAY SCHOOL
The first
of these innovations was the organization of a Sunday school. On May 8, 1927,
just a little more than a month after the April communion service, Bishop
Beachy and his followers had a meeting at the Flag Run meetinghouse for the
specific purpose of organizing a Sunday school.[28]
The fact that many of the youth were without a reading knowledge of German had
long been a matter of concern to Moses M. Beachy. He reasoned rightly that the
German language would have to be abandoned in the Amish worship service if the
young were not instructed therein, and this was his chief reason for wanting to
start the school. When the Sunday school was first started, it was held on
Sunday afternoon, but the meetings were quickly shifted to the forenoon of the
alternate Sundays on which no church service was held except on special
occasions. By May 22, 1927, this had become the established practice at both the
Summit Mills and Flag Run meetinghouses, and has remained so since that time.
2. THE INTRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY
The exact
date on which Bishop Beachy gave his official consent to the use of electric
lights and motors by the members of his congregation is not known. At the
counsel meeting held in the Summit Mills meetinghouse on November 28, 1926,
Beachy had told the congregation that he and Gideon Brenneman, (later a
minister in the conservative wing), had had some trouble about electric lights and
motors, but that this disagreement had been settled.[29]
Nothing is said as to the manner in which this disagreement was settled, but
the very fact that it was mentioned as early as 1926 indicates that by that
time some members of the congregation had begun to make use of these modern
conveniences. Among these was Bishop Beachy’s son, Noah M. Beachy, whose house
had been wired for electricity by a former owner and who used an electric motor
to drive his domestic water pump.[30]
Since no
date can be found when official permission was given for the use of these
conveniences,[31] it is presumed that
they came into use shortly after the Sunday schools were an established fact.
At least the use of electrical conveniences was the second of the innovations
practiced by the “Beachy congregation,” as it was later known.
- AUTOMOBILES
ALLOWED
The reader
will recall that at the November 14, 1926, meeting Bishop Beachy had
specifically stated that he could not permit the use of the automobile, as that
would alienate the Old Order Amish churches from his congregation. This would
indicate that while automobiles were not generally owned by members of the
congregation in 1926, there was at least some agitation that they should be
permitted to own them. On June 26, 1927, at a counsel meeting held at the
Summit Mills meetinghouse, the members were asked if they were willing to do
without automobiles, and a majority indicated that they were. But by August of
the same year this agitation had taken the form of open rebellion. Yoder’s
memoirs reveal that on August 21, 1927,
They asked a few of the brethren to agree to put away
their cars and not make trouble all the time. One did not agree to this
whereupon they gave him two weeks to think it over.[32]
From the
above it can be seen that by August, 1927, there was more than one automobile
in the possession of those who were members of Beachy’s congregation, and one
brother was not at once willing to dispose of this modern method of
transportation. Whether the congregation succeeded in persuading him to put
away his horseless carriage within the next two weeks is not known. In any case
he had only to wait a little more than a year until the horseless carriage was
no longer taboo for any member of the “Beachy congregation.” Sometime during
the month of February, 1929, the congregation voted unanimously to allow the
use of the automobile to its members.[33]
C. THE DIVISION COMPLETED
If
developments were rapid among the followers of Beachy after April 24, 1927,
they were no less so among the followers of Joseph and Noah Yoder. These two
men called in Amish ministers from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and Holmes
County. They held services in the home of Amos J. Yoder near Springs,
Pennsylvania, but most of Beachy’s followers were not present at this meeting,
and he himself was away on a trip to the West.
At the
close of the service Abraham Yoder asked the members to remain seated while the
ministers retired to a separate room. The members were then asked to come to
this room one at a time and express their dissatisfaction with Bishop Beachy’s
leadership. However, since the meeting had either not been generally announced
or perhaps because Beachy and his followers deliberately absented themselves,
the visiting ministers could get only one side of the dispute. They then called
another meeting for Friday afternoon of the same week and requested Samuel E.
Hershberger and Edward Yoder, two of Beachy’s loyal members, to be present.[34]
Thsee two
men were called into counsel at separate times by the four visiting ministers
and asked to give their views on the dispute. Death has sealed the lips of
Edward Yoder, and twenty years of time have dimmed the memory of Samuel
Hershberger so that he says,
I would be unable at present to say just what the
questions were, or what answers were given. I remember quite well that I told
them about forty of the members were not present at their meeting.[35]
While it has not been possible to get behind the scenes to
discover what actually happened at that Friday afternoon meeting at the Amos
Yoder home, it is known that the Yoder ministers were advised by the visiting
brethren not to withdraw from Beachy’s leadership immediately. Following this
meeting three of the visiting ministers returned to their homes, leaving only
Abraham Yoder of Holmes County, Ohio, to assist this conservative group.
On June 2,
1927, a church service was held for Abraham Yoder and also Harry Maust, an
Amish minister from Arthur, Illinois, who chanced to be passing through the
community. At this service members from both of the disputing sides were again
present. But four weeks later, on June 26, 1927, Noah M. and Joseph J. Yoder decided
to ignore the advice of the visiting ministers and held an independent worship
service in the Summit Mills meetinghouse on the very day Bishop Beachy had
announced that the service would be held in the Flag Run meetinghouse. The
Yoder ministers took this action on the very date that Beachy’s congregation
voted by majority to do without the automobiles for the present, which shows
that at that time Beachy was still trying to effect a reconciliation.[36]
It appears
then that Noah M. and Joseph J. Yoder must bear much of the responsibility for
the final division. It was they who with their followers withdrew and not
Beachy who expelled them. Furthermore, their withdrawal came at a time when
Beachy was still in the mood to compromise on the use of automobiles. Perhaps,
however, the attempt to fix responsibility for past events is useless. In any
case, after June 27, 1927, the break between the two opposing factions was
complete.
The Amish
colony which had been planted in the Casselman River region, perhaps as early
as 1768, was now divided into three separate units, where prior to 1895 there
had been only one. Jacob Ammann, though he had long been dead, yet spoke. His
strict teaching on the ban, and the attempt of the Yoders and their followers
to enforce it, were the chief causes of the 1927 division.
D. THE INFLUENCE OF THE
BEACHY AMISH CONGREGATION UPON THE OLD ORDER AMISH CHURCHES
- THE IMMEDIATE EFFECT IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
Due to the
manner in which the worship services of the Somerset County Amish had been
conducted prior to the division of 1927, the after effects of the division were
not at once so apparent as one might suppose. There were two meetinghouses in
the area, and the pattern of holding worship services on alternate Sundays only,
meant that as a rule the meetinghouses were used just once a month. Noah M. and
Joseph J. Yoder simply announced that their group would meet in the Summit
Mills meetinghouse on the same day that Beachy had announced services in the
Flag Run meetinghouse; and by this procedure they set the pattern which has
prevailed since that time.
The two
divergent groups continue to this day to use the same meetinghouses, but never
do they meet together in the same meetinghouse on a given Sunday. The Beachy
congregation continues to use both meetinghouses for Sunday school on alternate
Sundays, while the “Yoder congregation,” as it is now known, persists in the
old tradition of a church service once every two weeks, with the alternate
Sundays free for visiting friends. Amish families usually visit their neighbors
on these alternate Sundays.
Disputes of
such long duration, however, are not engaged in without leaving some scars. In
some instances the division in the church also divided families, and as usual
the accusations were many and bitter. Gradually, however, relations between the
two groups became less strained, and they now live side by side, perhaps more
harmoniously than before the actual division took place. Bishop Joseph J. Yoder
in his letter of March 3, 1950, was reluctant to discuss the issues of the 1927
division, lest some of the old ill feeling should be aroused thereby.
In
numerical strength the two congregations are now about equal. In 1950 the
congregation which is now led by Bishop Yoder consisted of fifty-three families
with a total of 154 communicant members,[37]
while the Beachy congregation of which Eli D. Tice of Grantsville, Maryland, is
now bishop consisted of forty-four families with 155 communicant members.[38] The present (1950)
ministers of the Yoder congregation are Bennie A. Fisher, ordained in May,
1928, Noah J. Yoder, son of Joseph J. Yoder, ordained in May, 1940, and Joseph
J. Yoder, ordained as minister in May of 1915 and as bishop of the Yoder
congregation on October 13, 1929.[39]
- THE EFFECT IN OTHER OLD ORDER AMISH COMMUNITY
It was in
those Amish communities which lay far beyond the boundaries of Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, that the movement started by Bishop M. M. Beachy in 1927 was
destined to make its deepest impressions. At first glance it seems strange that
Beachy and those who shared his views should not simply have transferred their
membership to the Maryland congregation, but for most of them this represented
too radical a change. By 1927 the Maryland congregation had undergone a
considerable transformation compared to what it had been in 1895 when the
original division took place. The men were permitted to wear barbershop
haircuts if they wished, and most of the younger men in the congregation were
clean shaven. Though German was still in use, there were also sermons in
English at almost every worship service.
In 1927 all
the married men in Beachy’s congregation were wearing the traditional Amish
haircut and the full beard. German was the only language used in preaching
except at funerals, and all singing was in German and in unison. To have
abandoned all this at once would have seemed sacrilegious to most of the
people. So Beachy and his followers worked out a sort of middle way, in which
they retained most of the former modes of dress, even though the use of the
automobiles and electrical appliances were now permitted. Also the German
language and unison singing were maintained in the worship services of the
church. Those who bought cars were asked to paint them black if they were not
already so. Young men were requested to let their beards grow after marriage,
and the German language continued to be the accepted medium of worship at all
except the funeral services. In fact, the ministers of the Beachy congregation
appear to have been more watchful than before for manifestations of worldly
pride in personal apparel and home decorating. A letter written by Norman
Beachy, a minister from Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, to Bishop M. M. Beachy in
May, 1935, is interesting in this connection. The letter says,
There is a new style coming in with window curtains
parted in the middle, which used to be forbidden, and I see no reason why we
should allow them now.[40]
By being
thus watchful lest the use of modern conveniences bring more compromise with
the “worldly” styles in dress, Bishop Beachy and his congregation built a
bridge over which other dissatisfied Amish groups could walk to greater freedom
without having to make so drastic a change as to kill the spirit of initiative
before the first step was taken. It should be added here that neither Bishop
Beachy nor his followers foresaw the results of their course of action in 1927,
nor did they deliberately plan it in order to attract other Amish groups. The
several Amish congregations that are now known as the Beachy Amish Mennonite
churches appealed to Bishop Beachy for help spontaneously and unsolicited.
After the
1927 division the Beachy congregation was an isolated group, cut off from
fellowship with Old Order Amish churches in other areas. It had no relations
with any other Amish congregations for a period of about three years. Within
that length of time the news that there was an Amish group in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, which permitted the use of the automobile and electrical
appliances, had Sunday school, but retained the German language and much of the
traditional Amish style in nonconformity of dress, had traveled into other
Amish communities.
The first
Amish group to make contact with the Beachy congregation in Somerset County was
the group led by Bishop John A. Stoltzfus from Bird in Hand, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. The followers of Stoltzfus had formerly belonged to a group of
Amish in Lancaster County who were known as the “King People,” so named because
their bishop was a man by the name of Isaac King. King and his followers had
broken away from the strict Old Order Amish in Lancaster County on the question
of the ban and the use of electrical conveniences in the home, but they
retained the horse and buggy as the approved means of transportation and also
continued the practice of holding their worship services in the homes of the
various members.
Bishop
Stoltzfus and his group now allowed the use of the automobile and purchased an
abandoned Church of the Brethren meetinghouse near Weavertown, Pennsylvania, in
which their worship services have since been held. Because of the location of
their meetinghouse this group is now known as the Weavertown congregation.[41] Only after the Beachy
and Weavertown congregations had become independent did they learn of each
other’s existence. A sort of alliance soon developed between the two
congregations, and by 1930 frequent visits were exchanged by both ministers and
lay people of the two communities.[42]
These two
congregations then remained alone until nearly eight years later when a group
of Amish people in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, became dissatisfied with the
Old Order Amish and withdrew to form a separate congregation.[43] This group had
received some help from Bishop John A. Stoltzfus of the Weavertown congregation
before 1937. However, during 1937 and 1938 because of illness in the home,
Bishop Stoltzfus was unable to absent himself from home for long periods of
time, and consequently the Mercer County (or Cochranton) congregation called
upon Bishop M. M. Beachy for help. He performed three wedding ceremonies for
members of this congregation, the last one on May 12, 1938. On May 13, 1938, he
assisted in an ordination of Valentine Yoder, the present bishop of the
Cochranton congregation, to that office. In 1950 this congregation had sixty
communicant members in which twenty-five families were represented.[44]
One month
after the ordination of Valentine Yoder, M. M. Beachy and his coministers were
requested to come to Madison County, Ohio, to assist a small Amish group who
had become dissatisfied with the Old Order Amish Church of that area. They
first traveled to Madison County, Ohio, on June 3, 1938, where they organized a
small congregation in the vicinity of Plain City, Ohio. Since there were no
ordained ministers among this group, the Somerset County ministers periodically
drove to Ohio to conduct worship services for the newly formed congregation
until October 11, 1938.[45] On the eleventh day
of that month M. M. Beachy ordained two young men from the local congregation
as ministers, Emery Yutzy and Robert M. Kaufman, both from the vicinity of
Plain City, Ohio.[46] This group was without
a resident bishop until April 25, 1949, when Elden L. Troyer was ordained to
that office.[47] In 1950 there were
fifty-eight communicant members in this congregation, in which approximately
twenty-five families were represented.[48]
By the fall
of 1939 the knowledge that the Beachy congregation in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, was willing to help other groups if requested to do so had
traveled as far as Miami and Howard counties, Indiana. In the fall of that year
M. M. Beachy assisted a small group in Miama County in forming a congregation.
Several years before this date the Conservative Amish Mennonites had organized
a congregation in this area, which soon after ceased to exist. It had, however
existed long enough to ordain a minister, and when the congregation
disintegrated the minister was left without a charge. This minister, Levi
Sommers from Amboy, Indiana, affiliated with the newly formed Beachy Amish
congregation, and was given charge of the group in the summer of 1940. This
congregation was without a resident bishop until May 8, 1949, when Ezra Miller
of Amboy was ordained to that office. In 1950 the congregation had forty-nine
communicant members in which nineteen families were represented.[49]
Approximately
one year later an Amish congregation located within the vicinity of Kempsville,
Virginia, affiliated with the growing number of Beachy Amish congregations.
This congregation had been started about the turn of the century, and many of
the first Amish there had come from the River congregation in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania. In 1940 a struggle over the ownership of automobiles, which had
long been brewing, was resolved when most of the older or original settlers who
were objecting to the automobiles moved farther north to the vicinity of
Staunton, Virginia. This virtually left the newcomers in power in the old
colony, and they lost no time in seeking affiliation with the Beachy Amish
congregations. Repeated request for information as to the size of the
congregation have remained unanswered.
In April,
1940, Beachy Amish congregations were again spreading westward. At that time
Bishop D. O. Burkholder, who had been ordained as a minister and bishop in the
Old Order Amish Church near Nappanee, Indiana, became dissatisfied and withdrew
from the group. Several attempts were made by Burkholder and the other Old
Order ministers of the area to gain a reconciliation. At Burkholder’s request
the ministers of the Beachy Amish congregation in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, were present when the third and final attempt was made. It
developed that this attempt was vain. The Old Order ministers withdrew from the
conference table and on April 28, 1940, silenced D. O. Burkholder, that is,
they forbade him any longer to preach in the Old Order Amish Church. The Old Order
ministers took this action without the full knowledge or consent of their
congregations.[50]
Once the
Old Order ministers had thus disposed of Burkholder, he was free to pursue his
own course, and this he did speedily. M. M. Beachy reinstated him in the
ministry, and he and his followers started an independent Amish congregation in
the midst of the Old Order Amish stronghold. Burkholder’s followers built a
meetinghouse about one and one-half miles northwest of Nappanee, Indiana, and
in 1950 this congregation had a membership of sixty-seven in which nearly
twenty-three families were represented.[51]
By 1941 the
Beachy Amish were again making their influence felt in Ohio, this time in
Holmes County. Services were first held there in 1941 with the help of Bishop
M. M. Beachy. Abner Schlabach, who had been ordained a minister in the Old
Order Amish Church in Holmes County, served the new congregation as minister
until the time of his death in 1948. After his death the congregation was
without a minister for a full year but received some assistance from a Beachy
Amish congregation in Stark County, Ohio, which had been organized in June of
1947.[52] In the fall of 1949
Bishop Eli D. Tice, successor to Bishop M. M. Beachy, ordained Jeremiah
Schlabach as minister in the Holmes County, who affiliated with this Beachy
Amish congregation located at Bunker Hill near Berlin, Ohio. In 1950 this group
consisted of eighteen families in which there was found a total of ninety
children. The congregation at that time was without a resident bishop.[53]
After 1941
there was a period of five years when no new congregations were organized. Then
in January, 1946, David Bontrager, a young Amishman, and his wife, living near
Middlebury, Indiana, became dissatisfied with the Old Order Amish church in
that vicinity and affiliated with D. O. Burkholder’s group near Nappanee,
Indiana, about twenty-five miles southwest of their home. They continued to
attend services at the Nappanee meetinghouse until Ascension Day, 1947, when
fifteen other Amish families living in the vicinity of Middlebury decided to
have services in their own homes. There was no ordained minister in this group,
and Bishop D. O. Burkholder and his cominister from Nappanee preached and held
communion services for these fifteen families. In the summer of 1947 this
group, which then consisted of thirteen families (two apparently returned to
the Old Order Amish), decided to build a meetinghouse in their own community.
This structure was built about five and one-half miles east of Goshen at a cost
of approximately $10,000. The first service was held on November 7, 1947. About
one month earlier David O. Bontrager, the young Amishman who with his wife had
joined the Nappanee congregation in 1946, was ordained as the bishop of this area
by D. O Burkholder at the relatively young age of thirty-one. In 1950 this
congregation had ninety-give communicant members which represented forty
families. There were also approximately 115 children who were not yet members
of the church.[54]
The summer of
1946 also marked the beginning of a Beachy Amish congregation near Kalona,
Iowa. Here Moses Yoder and John Helmuth were ordained as ministers by Bishop D.
O. Burkholder of Nappanee, Indiana, in June of that year.[55]
This congregation was without a resident bishop until 1948 when Bishop Jonathan
Miller, who had been silenced by the Old Order Amish, was reinstated by D. O.
Burkholder and given charge of the Kalona congregation.[56]
At present the congregation has a membership of fifty people in which
twenty-two families are represented.[57]
On June 22,
1947, a Beachy Amish congregation was organized in Stark County, Ohio, by
Bishop Eli D. Tice of Grantsville, Maryland. During the first year of this
congregation it was under the car of Joe D. Miller, a minister who had been
ordained in the Old Order Amish Church as early as 1910. On May 6, 1948, Alvin
Witmer was ordained as a minister by Bishop Tice, who also on October 12, 1948,
ordained Samuel J. Otto to the same office. The following spring on May 8 Otto
was ordained as bishop by Tice. In 1951 this congregation had a communicant
membership of ninety in which thirty-four families were represented.[58]
In 1948
there was a call for help from a group of Old Order Amish in Montgomery County,
Indiana. The first two ministers of this congregation were Jacob D. Gingerich
and William Yoder, who were ordained by Bishop D. O. Burkholder on June 27,
1948. On October 28, 1949, Benjamin S. Wagler was also ordained as a minister
by Burkholder. Though this is the youngest of the four Indiana congregations,
it has grown to be the largest. In 1950 this congregation consisted of 114
communicant members, among whom forty-two families were represented. In 1950
this congregation was yet without a resident bishop.[59]
E. Summary
When it is
remembered that the total Old Order Amish population of the United States is
probably in the neighborhood of 25,000 people (of whom some 13,000 are baptized
adults), the twelve congregations of Beachy Amish Mennonites that are scattered
through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Virginia seem almost negligible
in comparison. Yet within twenty years this group has grown large enough to
affect the religious life of over 2,000 persons who were formerly numbered with
the 25,000 Old Order Amish.
In all the
areas where Beachy Amish congregations have been organized the leaders have
kept the pattern which was set by M. M. Beachy in 1927. They have allowed
modern conveniences such as automobiles, tractors for field work as well as
belt work, and all types of household electrical appliances. At the same time
they have retained most of the typical Amish nonconformity to modern styles of
apparel, both for women and men. They have kept the German language as the
accepted medium of worship, both in preaching and in congregational singing.
The only two exceptions to this are at funerals, where English may be preached,
and at the “singings” of the young people of the church where English hymns may
be sung.
Wherever a
Beachy Amish congregation has been planted in the midst of a solidly Old Order
Amish community, it constitutes a bridge over which those who become
dissatisfied with the strictness of the Old Order group may walk into a larger
freedom without having to discard many of the social habits to which they have
become attached.
The Beachy
Amish congregations have, however, made one change that in the long view of
things is destined to be tremendously significant. Wherever they have been
organized they have the Sunday school and the meetinghouse. In all the Sunday
schools the New Testament in German has been the textbook for the adult
classes, while the younger children learn their German alphabet.
The first
result of this has been to revitalize the worship service for the younger
generation as they become familiar with the language in which it is conducted.
The second result has been the awakening of a zeal to evangelize those who are
ignorant of the Gospel, even though they do not belong to Amish communions.
This is something altogether alien to the Old Order Amish, who quote Matthew
10:5, 6 as being specifically directed against the missionary enterprise. The
study of the new Testament in isolated passages may permit one to form such an
opinion, but members of the Beachy Amish congregations who read the New
Testament in its entirety have also discovered the Great Commission in Matthew
28:19, 20. In three of the Indiana congregations this evangelistic zeal has
expressed itself in the form of a worship service on alternate Sunday evenings
when special attention is paid to the children in the congregation who are not
yet members of the church.[60]
The total
significance of the Beachy Amish movement cannot yet be measured, but it is
obvious that for the first time the Old Order Amish are confronted with a homogenous
group in their own midst who have successfully adopted most of the modern
conveniences without themselves becoming worldly. The Old Order people will
have more and more difficulty explaining this fact to the young of the church.
The Yoder congregation in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, has taken the
desperate measure of forbidding its members to work for outsiders, except for
such neighborly deeds as threshing and silo filling.[61]
Human nature is such that those who know it well can confidently predict the
failure of such methods wherever tried.
Whatever
the effect of the Beachy Amish Mennonite congregations upon the Old Order Amish
may finally be, it is interesting to note that for the second time in a century
the Amish of Somerset County, Pennsylvania, have furnished the Midwest states
with something new. From 1808 to 1865 it furnished settlers for new frontiers.
From 1927 to 1949 it provided the spiritual leadership which gave birth to the
Beachy Amish Mennonite congregations which often appear in the very areas where
the pioneers had gone a century earlier.[62]
About this article
This version of “The Rise and
Development of the Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches” is taken from the April
1955 issue of the Mennonite Quarterly Review. It was retyped verbatim by Cory
Anderson, including a close rendition of the original font size, font effects,
and spacing, though page breaks are different. Permission has been granted by
John Roth, editor of the Mennonite Quarterly Review, in March 2005 to circulate
this retyped version. Distribution is to be made at no charge to the
recipients.
The typist
may be contacted at coryaa@shentel.net. The Mennonite Quarterly Review may be
contacted at mqr@goshen.edu. The author, Alvin J. Beachy, lived from 1913 to
1986.