“Simple Architectural Lines and Economic Necessity”
A Survey of Church Buildings in Bible Fellowship Church History
Presented to the Historical Society of the Bible Fellowship Church
October 26, 2012
By Richard Taylor
Church buildings have one of two meanings for worshiping Christians. On the one hand, churches are holy or sacred space because they are a place where God appears and where people come to meet Him or enter His presence. This view has an Old Testament outlook since during that time God designated a place where He would meet with His people and His people could come to meet with Him. It was holy space, a temple, because God was present there. People came to the place of holiness to become holy by being in the presence of God.
On the other hand, churches are the place where the people of God meet. God had promised that wherever and whenever His people gathered in His name, He would be there in their midst. This outlook has a decidedly New Testament orientation. An earthly place, the temple, where God was present, no longer exists because it was replaced by Jesus who is now the temple of God among human beings. In this case, the place where the people of God gather is holy because they are there. The place becomes holy because God is among His people. The meeting place is holy because they meet there.
Anabaptists generally adopted the second view when they thought about their sacred places. They were a New Testament people. New Testament concepts and thinking directed their thinking. In their earliest days as an underground movement, they met wherever they could and knew that where they met was sacred whether it was a hidden place in a dark wood, a house owned by a sympathetic believer or a barn that could accommodate a larger group. They were the people of God. Jesus was among them when two or more of them gathered. Where they gathered was holy.
The Bible’s use of the word church, ekklesia, allows but one meaning, “called out ones.” This Greek word has crept into our vocabulary through words like ecclesiastical. According to the Bible, the church is people, plain and simple. The passing of years brought different meanings to the word church through association. Church was not simply people but the place where the church met. The word church became synonymous with a building dedicated to worship in which the church met. Church even took on the meaning of worship event. People go to church, not always referring to the building, but the worship service.
But, you could use other words than church. The people might be a congregation or perhaps brethren, not a church. The buildings might be called a house of prayer or a meeting house, not a church. Some implied antipathy to the word church makes the vocabulary of church and church buildings something of a dilemma. And it makes it difficult to understand how they thought about the buildings in which they met for worship.
A concept of church and church buildings was passed down through the Mennonite Community which formed in Germantown, Pennsylvania, and was carried to Montgomery County in the formation of the Franconia Conference. When John Oberholtzer and those who shared his views formed the General Conference Mennonites, they had inherited the culture of this background with regard to understanding church buildings. William Gehman and the others who began what was then known as the Evangelical Mennonites had also inherited ideas about what church buildings were to be and how they were to be used. These ideas were not written or expressed but just understood.
John Ruth says the tradition of church buildings among the Mennonites of Eastern Pennsylvania was both Dutch and English in origin. He states, “Both ruled out ornament or the religious iconography of what the Quakers dubbed ‘steeplehouses.’ The interiors of both presented a row of leaders facing the larger body of participants. Their seats might be raised above the floor level, to facilitate hearing.” (John Ruth, The Mennonite Quarterly Review, April 1999, “Only A House… Yet It Becomes,” page 240). According to Ruth, most of the early church buildings were constructed of logs and done simply. Often, the buildings doubled as school rooms. Later, more complex construction and sturdier material such as stone and brick replaced the simple log structures.
Our Earliest Congregations and Their Meeting Houses
The history of church buildings in the Evangelical Mennonites / Bible Fellowship Church begins before the denomination began. The first church building was constructed in Haycock Township outside of Quakertown. The evidence that this building was the original is contained in the minutes of the very first conference which was held “in the Meeting House in Haycock Township, Bucks County” (Verhandlungen, page 24) on November 1, 1859. The building at Zionsville was not dedicated until Saturday and Sunday of the following week, November 12 and 13. While Zionsville was the first congregation, clearly the first facility was the one in Haycock.
The origins of the meeting house in Haycock Township were the result of an event. As the story is told, two men, Abel Strawn and Henry Diehl, were riding in a buckboard during a storm when a tree fell on them. Neither of them was hurt in the incident. Out of gratitude, they constructed a church on the site. According to the Bucks County Traveler of November 1951, “This abandoned church building stood on the road leading from Applebachsville to Quakertown about a mile east of the Richland Township line. It had been the Evangelical Methodist church, erected in 1856, by Abel Strawn and Henry Diehl, the former of Haycock and the latter of Richland, to commemorate their remarkable escape from death. A tree blew down during a storm and fell across their wagon between them, without injuring either as they were driving along a road. The church had only a few members and finally disbanded. Only two persons had been in 3 the graveyard adjoining and their bodies were taken up and buried elsewhere.” J. H. Battle in his History of Bucks County writes, “The Evangelical Mennonite congregation originated in Haycock Township where in October, 1859, the first church building of this denomination, was dedicated.” (http://bfchistory.org/qtown.html) In the papers filed concerning a court dispute over the ownership of the church building in Quakertown, the following is recorded, “At the time of the organization in 1858 they had no churches or meeting houses and worshiped in private houses.” Three different dates are given in connection with this church. It was built in 1856. It was apparently unused in 1858. It was dedicated in October, 1859.
When we ask, what sort of building was it, we must answer by inference. This Haycock Township meeting house was later moved piece by piece to Quakertown, about 3 miles away, in 1872. H. H. Bergey, a leader in the Quakertown congregation had this to say of the building, “At this time there was a vacant church in Haycock Township, possession of which was obtained by this band of Christians, who then razed it, and the brick and other material were hauled to Quakertown and used in the construction of the present church. In its original state it was without a basement, just a four square building with hand-made pews heated with two large stoves, one on either side.” (from “In the Heart of Quakertown”)
We know the builders of the church were Henry Diehl and Abel Strawn. Both of these men were or would be connected to the Evangelical Mennonites. By 1860, Henry Diehl was a preacher with them. Abel Strawn was married to Hannah Brunner, whose brother was Joel Brunner and whose sister was married to Jonas Musselman. The Brunners were a core family in the formation of the Evangelical Mennonites. Strawn would later be one of their preachers. All of this is intended to lead to the conclusion that the building they erected was probably of the simple sort Mennonites were building in those days. At the very least, we can conclude that this was the first building of our denomination.
The distinction of being building number 2 belongs to the Zionsville Congregation. On November 12 and 13, 1859, the Upper Milford congregation dedicated their new meeting place. But, we note with a great deal of interest that the invitation sent out to “all friends of Christianity from near and far” to attend invited them to a “church” dedication. It was actually identified in the invitation as a newly built church. The invitation raises the question why the building was called a church when the word was not part of the common vocabulary of these humble folks. The cornerstone made the word church permanent on the building. A couple of reasons might be offered. William Gehman, certainly a key figure in the development of the congregation to this date, had Quakertown come from a Lutheran background and did not carry a built in antipathy to the word. Possibly, the occasion was intended to be ecumenical and so the vocabulary would be intended to attract a broader audience who would more identify with the word church. No explanation was offered.
When the split occurred between the semitraditionalists led by Oberholtzer and the revivalists led by Gehman, original hopes had been to share the building in Upper Milford. The building in which they met had been built in 1816. It had replaced a log structure and had been constructed of stone. It had been divided into two parts to allow a side for worship and a side for school. In 1843, about six years before Gehman became one of the ministers there, the building had been remodeled. “The project included building the walls higher and adding a new roof, rafters, joists, floor, windows, doors and seats” (Upper Milford Mennonite Church, 236 Years, page 6) David Gehman, who sided with William Gehman in the division, was one of the overseers for the re-modeling.
This newly built meeting house of the Evangelical Mennonites must have been quite simple. The Centennial Anniversary booklet offered this description in 1959: The plain brick building was 36` x 50` and originally had two front doors at the places where there now are windows. The original pews, still in use have been improved and rearranged so that there are now three aisles. The middle benches had a partition between them. The women sat on the right side and the men sat on the left side so that they could keep their eyes on the horses in the sheds. Oil lamps on pedestals at each end of the long pulpit and Upper Milford Zionsville several on wall brackets furnished the light and two large wood stoves furnished the heat in the early days.
It is unlikely that some kind of table was upfront since Communion was served from a common cup. No piano or organ was included since such instruments were frowned upon at that time. Benches could be found to the left and right of the pulpit which were called the “amen corners.” The Centennial Anniversary booklet adds concerning these amen corners, “This was true in name and in fact.”
No church would be complete without an altar.
For many years the altar consisted of a large bench (mourner’s bench). This was a scene of great rejoicing in those early days and the place where large numbers met their Saviour for the first time. What wonderful times they were and how the Holy Spirit poured out His blessings! After services the members would pray for the unsaved at the mourner’s bench.
(Centennial Anniversary)
The mourner’s bench was a revivalist innovation of Charles Finney in the 1840s. The presence of these benches was standard fare in buildings that were given to revivalist evangelism. Later, the mourner’s bench would be replaced by the altar rail.
The Centennial Booklet preserved more details. “Originally painted on the wall over the pulpit in large German letters were the words, ‘Blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it,’ Luke 11:28.” The booklet also noted the provision for the horses. “As was the custom in early days where people travelled by horse and buggy, there was a row of sheds behind the meeting house to protect the horses during bad weather.”
Ten years later, a new work had begun in nearby Coopersburg. In 1869, a deed for land was secured and yet another building was begun. Howard L. Shelly wrote for the 75th anniversary booklet in 1944, “The building of this along simple architectural lines was not only the wish of the members, but it was an economic necessity.”
Rick Paashaus described the erection and interior of the building in his history of Coopersburg presented to the Historical Society:
On August 31, 1869, those farmers and townspeople paid $410.60 to purchase a piece of ground right along the Philadelphia Pike, just about 1/2 mile south of the Center Valley toll house. On this property purchased from David Mack of Upper Saucon Coopersburg 6 Township, using stones from area farms, the congregation constructed their meeting house. This meeting house still stands as a testimony of God’s faithfulness and the commitment of His people.
A snug little building, the church had but one aisle that sloped toward the front. A Seth Thomas school house clock ticked out the minutes the congregation spent in worship. Heated by an iron coal stove and lit by hanging kerosene lamps, the sanctuary was plain and functional. Pews fastened to the outer walls made latecomers crawl over the knees of early arrivers. The modest Mennonite women sat on the right separated from the men and older boys on the left. The pulpit was divided from the congregation by the altar railing where the penitent could pray, the needy would seek healing, and the church family would gather for worship.
To the left of the pulpit, perpendicular to the congregation’s pews, were the three rows known as the “Amen Corner” where the older men who were leaders of the congregation would assist the preacher in worship. From here they would verbalize their agreement, raise their hands in praise, keep an eye on the sleepy brother or over-active child in the pew, and lead heartily in the singing much like today’s choir.
Ward Shelly noted an unusual architectural detail. “The floor had about a four per cent slope from the rear to the altar railing in the front.” Shelly remembers the slope in the floor. Later, after the register was added, he says, “With the register at the end of the slope, many a penny, nickel or dime came rolling down the slope and disappeared down the register.” No explanation has been offered for this slope in the floor.
Shelly too notes provision for the horses. He wrote, “As was the custom at nearly all the early country churches and where the people arrived by horse and buggy, there was the usual row of sheds behind the meeting house to protect the horses during bad weather.”
By 1874, the denomination consisted of six churches. Of them, Zionsville and Coopersburg were constructed specifically by their congregations. Quakertown began with an already existing building which was later torn apart and re-assembled in the borough of Quakertown. The others offer their own stories. Allentown represented an early attempt at a church there. This effort collapsed and seems to have had no building. Bangor, in Northampton County, had a church building of which little is known. The congregation was small and nearly non-existent. David Henning maintained whatever was there. When he died, the work there ended. Fleetwood also represented an early attempt which would collapse. The current Fleetwood Church, like the current Allentown church, represents a second start. Of interest concerning Fleetwood is that their earliest meetings were held in what had been a distillery.
Congregational Formation and Church Buildings
These early churches show no pattern in the correlation between congregational formation and church building. Quakertown’s original building was apparently constructed with no congregation in mind. Those who built began to use it for worship some years after it was constructed. The Zionsville Congregation had formed and determined to build a meeting house after nothing else was available. The Coopersburg building may have indicated a deeper commitment to ministry in the community. Bangor was a building without a congregation. Whatever work existed there ended with the death of the pastor, David Henning, in 1882. No mention is made of the building there. Allentown, in the first effort, must never have reached the building stage. Fleetwood, in the first effort there, broke away before a building was erected.
This early survey indicates that no clear or strong principles or convictions led in either the construction of or acquisition of church buildings. Congregations often started in homes or rented facilities. They built or acquired buildings as a matter of convenience. Having their own worship center allowed them a measure of certainty about when and under what circumstances they would meet. Their own building allowed them to hold meetings whenever they wanted and under whatever circumstances they desired. They could even have a meeting every night of the week if they should choose so.
The next 20 years brought the formation of nearly 20 congregations. While not all of them eventuated in the erection of church facilities, a number of them did. In the middle of the decade of the 1880s, a flurry of activity brought several new buildings. The relationship between congregation and church building can be observed in the events at Reading.
The ministry in Reading had begun as early as 1882 when Samuel H. Frey was assigned there. In her history of the Reading Church, Ruth Hartman stated that the work was begun in a home. Attempts were made to raise funds for a church building but nothing came from the effort. In 1884, the young, entrepreneurial, aggressive new preacher, William Musselman, was appointed to the Reading, Blandon and Fleetwood circuit. The church began to develop quickly under Musselman’s leadership. The decision was made to hastily erect a church building to deal with the people who were coming to the service. The so called 4 day church was erected. Its name reflected the fact that it was built in 4 days from hemlock logs. But since the ingathering of people was so great, additions became necessary almost immediately. W. C. Detwiler, an observer of the events made the following report to the Gospel Banner,
In consequence of the marvelously rapid increase of the membership at Reading, Pa., and the great interest manifested by members of other denominations, under the prudent management and herculean efforts of our devoted and evidently wholly consecrated young brother, W. B. Musselman, the chapel has become too small to contain even the one-third part of eager listeners and worshipers on many occasions.
Beholding that lamentable state of affairs, a very devout brother, not a member as yet, but a very active participant at all times, has been prompted to make so encouraging an offer to have the chapel enlarged that the brethren immediately accepted it and commenced to extend its depth fifteen feet. Finding that the thus extended space was still inadequate to contain the continually increasing congregation, consisting of members and others, the said liberal and evidently consecrated brother, though not consenting to have his name published in connection with his laudable gifts, has, after appealing fervently to the God of all wisdom, mercy and benevolence, voluntarily consented to have an additional thirty feet added, subject to his first offer, which was accepted by the congregation, and in a very short time, the chapel, which a fortnight ago, was but thirty-five feet in depth was eighty feet deep on January 10th 1886, spacious enough to hold between six and seven hundred individuals.
On January 10th, 1886, it was dedicated to the service of God, your humble correspondent having preached in the forenoon from Dan. Vii; 20, in the afternoon from Ps. 50,2, both times in German and in the evening from Matt. V;48, in the English language. By subscription and otherwise sufficient amount has been secured to liquidate an old and the entire new debt to within about fifty dollars, one brother having subscribed over one hundred dollars and will, if necessary, do better. May the Lord graciously smile and abundantly bless these zealous congregations, with their liberal donors, is the sincere prayer of your humble fellow-pilgrim.
What Detwiler describes is an attempt to keep up with the rapid development of the congregation in Reading. What led the construction was the need to make a place for people, the limitation of financial resources, and a person who either built or paid for the building of the additions. Detwiler says that the building was ultimately 2800 square feet. When he suggests that 600 – 700 people could be accommodated, he was probably using evangelistic numbers because that would only allow .75 square feet per person which would probably have been a bit crowded even in a crowd that was willing to be crowded.
The building in Reading was not done. The successful ministry of W. B. Musselman was followed in 1887 by the ministry of Abel Strawn. The work continued its development. The decision was made to replace the wooden structure with brick construction. The Annual Conference of 1887, which was meeting in the church building in Reading, decreed, “We as members of the Conference felt the necessity to have meeting houses in the city of Reading and Bethlehem if the work shall prosper, therefore Resolved: That, if possible, buildings be erected at both places this year. Abel Strawn shall have supervision over the construction in Reading and Thomas Geho in Bethlehem…” (Verhandlungen, page 166)
The construction in Reading required a loan of $2000.00. This loan became a source of concern. A couple of years later, it was clear that they had a problem. In February, 1891, the conference recorded, “The circumstances of the Reading Church property were discussed, considered, and consequently Resolved: That this conference give an assurance to Elder A. Strawn, signed by the Presiding Elder and Secretary for $2100.00 with 6% interest for one year for the above mentioned property.” In 1894, the problem was still active.
“Whereas the Reading Church debt is a burden on the Reading Class, therefore, Resolved: That the Annual Conference will take the responsibility for $1200.00 under the condition that the Reading Class takes upon itself the remainder with interest, and, further, Resolved: That every Supervising Preacher shall try to collect as many dollars in his district as he has members, and if possible more, and to present them over at the next Annual Conference. Collected for interest throughout the last year — $30.00.”
(Verhandlungen, page 231)
The debt was finally retired entirely in 1902.
The brick building had put a financial strain on the Reading congregation and on the denomination. The financially conservative leaders were probably even more entrenched in financial conservatism.
Church Buildings and Legalities
In 1866, the Evangelical Mennonites published their doctrinal statements. No mention is made of any of the legalities that would later be taken for granted. Incorporation of congregations and purchase of property were not high on their list of concerns. At that point, only two congregations existed and only two facilities were being used. While legal documentation for properties and facilities existed, procedures did not.
In 1879, it was a different matter. The first of several mergers had taken place bringing together congregations from Canada and mid-western states. The merger had created a newer and larger church known as the Evangelical United Mennonite Society. In 1880, they published their doctrines, disciplines and procedures. Included were two portions which gave instruction about church properties. The first was a form for dedication of church buildings. The form covered 4 pages. By way of comparison, the form for marriage covered 2. The second portion was instructions for the purchase of property and erection of a facility. The instructions included what we have already seen to be the attitude about church buildings. “Let all our buildings be kept plain, and not more expensive than necessary for comfort and health, and with free seats.” Title to property should be properly secured and deeded. Trustees were to be appointed for the property who were to report to the quarterly conference. The deed should include a trust clause indicating that the church was held in trust for the Evangelical Mennonite Society.
While the instructions were clear, it is obvious the letter of this law did not always get applied. The Springtown Church became an appointment in 1876 when Jonas Musselman was appointed the founding pastor. As the work progressed, it arrived at the point where the congregation was ready to put up a building. On November 15, 1885, the building, St. Paul’s Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church, was dedicated. The incorporation of the congregation did not occur until April 29, 1886. Perhaps, no one thought about taking the legal steps that had been established.
Not only was it difficult to take legal steps, it was difficult to keep up legally with changes that had taken place. This created a major problem for the Quakertown Church when a dispute arose in the late 1890s.
LeRoy Wilcox came across a note which indicates the origin of the problem. The Baltimore Sun ran the following brief note on January 17, 1905. At this point, it is difficult to determine the credibility of this note since it appears nearly two years after the events and comes from a newspaper in Baltimore, not Quakertown.
TOBACCO SPLITS A CHURCH
Mennonite congregation expelled because one of its members chewed. Rev. M. A. Zyner and the trustees of the Evangelical Mennonite Church will not surrender their church to the Mennonite Brethren in Christ, even if they have to protect the property with guns. This statement was made by Henry Smith, one of the trustees, and was backed by the pastor.”
What is not disputed is this quarrel wound up in the courts. What was at stake was the articles of incorporation. The court documents contain the following declaration.
A charter for the Quakertown church was applied for to the Court of Common Pleas at Doylestown, April 8, 1872. It was properly advertised September 16, 1872, and the charter was granted Oct. 22, 1872, and recorded in Miscellaneous Book, Vol. 17, Page 290. The name of the body incorporated was the Evangelical Mennonite Church of Quakertown, Bucks Co., Pennsylvania. The Trustees were Jonas Musselman, Henry M. Smith and Jacob Horn.
The argument in sum was that the Quakertown Church was incorporated as the Evangelical Mennonite Church in 1872 and was not bound by the corporation known as the Mennonite Brethren in Christ in 1895. The quarrelsome Quakertown Church won the rights to the building in this legal battle even though it was a pyrrhic victory since the congregation folded and returned the building to the MBC.
The question of the legal responsibility for a property came with the explosive ministry of the Gospel Workers who in reality had no formal or legal connection to the Mennonite Brethren in Christ. Yet the churches they began and properties they purchased would be enfolded into the organized church. In 1898, the issue became a matter for discussion. At the Annual Conference, Friday, March 4, 1898, they met as a committee of the whole. “RESOLVED, That the Conference resolve itself into a committee this evening at 7.30 to consider more fully the operations of the Gospel Workers and their future relations to the Church.” Later at that same conference, they determined: “RESOLVED, That whenever the Gospel Workers turn one or more of their missions over to the Church a committee, consisting of the Presiding Elder, the Missionary Presiding Elder and the Treasurer, shall appraise the personal property belonging to the mission, and, in case the Church chooses to buy the same, it shall be paid for out of the Home Missionary treasury.” In the following year, 1899, they had to add some refinements,
WHEREAS, The Gospel Workers’ Society desires to open new halls right along, and therefore propose to surrender all classes and halls to the Mennonite Brethren in Christ: and WHEREAS, They always pay their rent one month in advance, which (one month’s rent) they agreed to forfeit in case the Church will close the mission inside of 90 days after it is handed over; therefore
RESOLVED, That all advance rent will be paid by our Church for such mission halls where the work is carried on for 90 days or more.
Currently, our church planting procedures do not involve our church planting ministry, Church Extension Ministries, in the legal ownership of property. The local church will ordinarily hold the title of the properties in trust for the denomination as was outlined in the 1880 procedures.
Church Buildings and Dedications
In the latter part of the 19th century, our denomination saw a flurry of buildings. The 1880s saw buildings erected in Hereford, Reading, Springtown, Blandon, Terre Hill and Bethlehem. The 1890s brought buildings to Graterford, Stemton, Erwinna, Spring City and Royersford.
The dedication of these buildings indicates that the congregations valued their buildings and saw them as evidence of God’s blessing. Two dedication services were reported to the Gospel Banner. Not only did the congregations celebrate their new buildings but saw the occasion as an opportunity for ministry.
Eld. Abel Strawn of Reading Pa., sent us clipping from the Reading Eagle, in reference to the church dedication and revival services in that place, which we copy for the Banner.
Church Dedication
“The church of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ, on North 10th beyond Oley, was formally dedicated with appropriate ceremonies yesterday. The church was largely attended and the services were very interesting. Rev. M. Berkheiser, of Auburn, preached the dedication sermon in the morning, Rev. Peter Nicholas conducted the exercises in the afternoon, and Rev. John Fohl in the eveing. The visiting clergyman assisted in the services. The congregation will open their Christian convention this evening, at which the presiding elder, Rev. Wm. Gehman, will also assist, and will continue in session until Thursday. Services will be held in the morning, afternoon and evening.”
Revival Services in the Mennonite Church
“The revival meetings in the new Mennonite Brethren in Christ church on North 10th street beyond Oley, are being largely attended and are meeting with success. Rev. William Gehman preached a very earnest sermon on the text: “Be not apart from God,” and in closing his remarks he made a strong appeal to the sinners and backsliders among the audience to come forward and be saved. At the close of the remarks 8 persons came forward and knelt at the altar. The audience then came forward and sang selections from the popular revival hymns.
It appears, by reading the reports in the Reading Eagle of January 17, 18, 19, and 20; sent us by Bro. Strawn that the meeting held in the new Church caused quite a sensation.
We received these reports too late to give the details; therefore we will give the different headings of the articles as given in the above paper as they appear on the above respective dates:
“Cured in 15 minutes”
“A preacher tells how his stricken wife was made well.”
“Very odd and interesting laying on of hands ceremony here.”
“Very exciting scenes.”
“At the Faith Cure Convention in the city today.”
“Singing, praying, weeping, fainting, and general rejoicing.”
“I am healed.”
“More men and women praying at the altar for help.”
“To-day’s thrilling scenes in the Mennonite Church.”
“Church customs rebuked.”
“The closing scenes of the Faith Cure Convention.”
The December 1, 1888, edition of the Gospel Banner gave a thorough report of the dedication of the church building in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
The dedication and convention which were held according to announcement began in full power on Saturday evening Nov. 10th. Presiding Elder Wm. Gehman came early on Saturday in good spirits, and till evening Elders F. W. Berkheiser and Oswin Hillegass were present too, and Eld. Berkheiser preached an appropriate sermon for the occasion, and after the sermon there was a general consecration of preachers and all Christians, which was acceptable to God; and great was the manifestation of the Holy Ghost. On Sunday morning Elds. M. A. Zyner, Joshua E. Fidler, A. B. Gehret and John Krauss also appeared, with many of the Lord’s people from different places, so that the new house was filled up all day. Presiding Eld. Wm. Gehman preached a powerful sermon in the morning after which there was some collecting done of which the out-come proved to $368.00. We took a common dinner (had all things common) prepared in the prayer meeting room of the church. At two o’clock in the afternoon, meeting opened. Eld. F. W. Berkheiser preached the word to an attentive audience after which $135.00 more were collected which made $500.00 in all, (what was needed to pay for the church) after which the church was dedicated, Wm. Gehman P. E. officiating. All was done joyfully, and great peace and joy prevailed. Sanctification keeps people sweet even when money is needed. Hallelujah! The church building is 50×36 ft. and the total cost of house, lot, heater, fence, etc. is $3300.00 the great storm which passed through this part of the country, added some to the costs, but the brethren of Bethlehem believe in paying their debts. Not one drew back. They all gave. They all gave according to their several abilities. They all gave cheerfully. Not only they but many who do not belong to the M. B. C. Church aided us, while also the brethren from other places had open hands and hearts, so that we can say: “In union there is strength,” glory to God! Who had His hand in the work from the beginning unto the end. There was peace prevailing through the entire convention. Many thanks are continually offered to God for His helping power, and we will also thank our brethren from other places for the love and aid we have received from them. In the evening Elds. Joshua E. Fidler and Oswin Hilegas preached, after which the altar, 25 ft. long was filled with seekers for the power for service, which was not in vain, for one after the other was filled with the Holy Ghost and many “old time” shouts ascended. On Monday morning the convention proper was opened by Wm. Gehman who preached a powerful sermon. In the afternoon Eld. G. A. Campbell, who arrived in the morning preached a very spiritual sermon which was followed by altar services. In the evening Eld. L. B. Heller from Newark, N. J., arrived. Eld. Berkheiser preached a powerful sermon followed by Eld. Heller after which there was once more a consecration meeting, which was also owned by God. On Tuesday morning Eld. J. M. Hartzel, of the Reformed Church, preached on Sanctification. His sermon made a general impression. Bro. L. B. Heller had charge of early prayer meeting which was also very interesting. His theme was “divine healing.” In the afternoon Ed. L. B Heller had charge and many were anointed for healing and also healed. All praise for a living God in Whom we can trust. His promise “according to thy faith be it unto you,” may be fulfilled even to-day. Hallelujah! In the evening Eld. Hartzell preached another sermon on the words “Mighty to save.” Sinners came forward for forgiveness, and believers for sanctification. His labors were greatly appreciated. May he ever abide in Jesus. On Wednesday morning Eld. Hilegas preached and was followed by Eld. Meyer of the U. B. Church. The Lord was with us. Eld. Meyer preached in the afternoon from “The Lord is a sun,” followed by Eld. M. A. Zyner, after which altar services were held and God wonderfully revealed Himself to His saints. In the evening our beloved brother Reading Beatty Johns, pastor of the A. M. E. Church of Reading, preached a powerful sermon which was convicting to the sinner and edifying to the saints, he also gave urgent invitations for sinner and believers to come forward for salvation and sanctification until the altar was full and a mighty power prevailed, glory to God. On Thursday morning Eld. J. E. Fidler preached an earnest sermon to not so large an audience on account of rain but God was in the meeting. Eld. R. B. Johns preached again in the afternoon of “Faith” after which some more were anointed according to James, and others were gloriously sanctified. In the evening the writer preached. This convention proved to be a great blessing to many pilgrims and eternity alone will tell what has been done. Our people here are eagerly looking forward to our next convention which will be held at Quakertown commencing on Jan. 1st, 1889. May God wonderfully bless our beloved Bro. Campbell in his undertaking. So much from your brother under the blood.
Wm. B. Musselman, Bethlehem, Pa., Nov. 20th, 1888.
Church Buildings in the Twentieth Century
The end of the 19th Century brought another flurry of activity in the church. New leadership under the aggressive and entrepreneurial W. B. Musselman gave rise to aggressive evangelistic outreach activity. Under his ministry in Reading, several key women stepped up and stepped out to help form the Gospel Workers Society. His later ministry to Bethlehem saw a similar enlistment. The Gospel Workers were followed by the Gospel Heralds who began to press the work of the Gospel under the leadership of C. H. Brunner. They moved eastward in Bucks County and then across the river into New Jersey. They expanded to the west and moved into towns like Gettysburg and York. They looked to the more northern coal regions and the villages like Girardsville, Shamokin, and Sunbury populated by hard working coal miners. As W. B. focused on the Gospel Workers and moved toward printing and distribution of literature, a new generation of young leaders took his place. C. H. Brunner gave impetus to the Gospel Heralds. H. B. Musselman and W. G. Gehman stepped up to encourage even more evangelistic efforts. Eventually, C. H. Brunner’s role in the Gospel Heralds was taken over by the more charismatic W. G. Gehman.
Evangelistic work in a community often began in a tent. Crowds were gathered. People were saved and sanctified. But more permanent meeting places were needed after the tent moved on. In places like Erwinna and Stemton, buildings were quickly put up. They were inexpensive and often constructed by the men of the church. But in some places, buildings were not feasible. A hall could be rented. The first floor provided a meeting place. The second floor provided living quarters. Economy was still the word.
The geographical focus began to change. The evangelists began to sow and reap where there were more people. The work in villages was replaced by work in towns. There were more people in towns and even more in cities. But meeting places became more difficult because where there were more people, facilities were fewer and prices were higher. Meeting places were harder to find and more expensive to rent.
The vocabulary of church buildings was changing. In the early days, a church facility was a meeting house or on occasion, a church. Meeting house seemed appropriate to describe the plain and simple structures they put up. As the 20th Century drew near, the buildings were not so plain and simple. They began to call their buildings chapels, not meeting houses. And gradually, you could see differences. And eventually, the word chapel gave way to the common designation, church.
1912 and Beyond
1912 has significance in our examination of church buildings not because it is exactly 100 years ago but because in 1912, the Annual Conference determined that a picture of new buildings should be put in the yearbook.
While we cannot consider each new building, we can see the evolution of the styles of buildings and make some observations.
We have seen that decisions about buildings seem to have been entirely pragmatic. No theology dictated a particular style of architecture. The building was a place where the people of God could assemble for worship. Mennonite simplicity and humility continued to dictate that buildings were neither ornate nor elaborate. Revivalism called for an altar rail where sinners might come after walking down the aisle to repent and be saved and in earlier days sanctified.
No pattern can be seen in the decision whether to purchase an existing building or to erect a new building. One of the Philadelphia Churches purchased an existing building for its place to meet. Later, Philadelphians determined to construct a building at the corner of Ontario and Goodman. The Wissinoming building was constructed as a one story, flat roof, building that envisioned the later construction of an additional story. The church in Scranton, purchased in 1919, had belonged to a German Methodist congregation.
The meeting house look continued in places like Lehighton and Harleysville. The historic simplicity was continued in them. Functionality led in the construction of churches like Spring City which was built with the parsonage as part of the structure. More recently, the church in Longneck, Delaware also built a church with a parsonage at the rear but the Delaware decision took no account of the precedent in Spring City.
The somewhat modest, but quality churches, had begun to take on the look of churches. The Reading Church was built with windows with angled tops which gave the effect of pointing heavenward. Shamokin, Sunbury and Mt Carmel followed the pattern.
Several churches remodeled their buildings. The front door was moved from the center to the side. This alteration in some way allowed more room. Quakertown, Reading and Allentown all reflected that pattern.
Perhaps the most conspicuous change was the appearance of the big brick building with imposing tower like turrets giving a sense of strength. Congregations were outgrowing the modest medium size buildings. In Allentown, the congregation under the pastoral leadership of B. Bryan Musselman required a new building. In 1924, Bethel Church was finished. The Salem congregation in Philadelphia purchased a new and more elaborate building. The Easton Church followed with the purchase of a larger building. In 1933, Emmaus dedicated a substantial building. Sunbury’s building portrayed a fortress like security.
A new generation of church buildings came in the 1960s which would have apparently been labeled steeplehouses in the old days. Gone was the meeting house look. Gone as well was the chapel. What appeared now could only be called a church. The first of these buildings seems to have been the Spring City church which was built with steeple in place that do more than meet on Sunday. Churches have become a center for community life, not simply for worship. Church facilities include gymnasiums for basketball and allpurpose spaces that allow the congregations to gather for all-congregational dining occasions. These churches are communities who gather for much more than praise. Some church facilities even provide for schools. Others permit rental for community events.
Conclusion
The tradition of buildings followed by the Bible Fellowship Church seems to be one of pragmatism. What shaped the buildings was a desire to make a place where people could hear God’s word and respond to it. The profile of the building mattered little. The layout of the worship center made provision for altar rails which served not to separate the holy from the profane but to provide a place where mourners could pray. As our theology evolved, the altar rails disappeared. The concern for humble meeting houses on side streets also disappeared and gave way to attractive buildings in highly visible locations. In the end, there simply is no architectural style that distinguishes church buildings of the Bible Fellowship Church.
Decisions about buildings still seem to be driven by a desire to provide a place where God’s people can gather. What has changed is not the desires of the people but the expectation they have for their buildings. While room for worship and prayer was all that was expected at one time, today’s congregation expects much more from the place Sinking Spring where they meet. We can be sure that buildings will continue to change as the expectations of people change.
Appendix A – Form for Dedication of Church Buildings – 1880
Section V
Of Dedication.
At the time of dedication the minister in charge, or some other minister, appointed to officiate, shall read one of the following Scripture passages: Psalm 24, Psalm 84, Psalm 132, or John 17. Then a dedicatory hymn sung, followed by prayer, then the sermon. After this 2 Chron. 6: 12-31, or a suitable part of 1 Kings 8, be read.
Then the congregation shall rise before the Lord, and the following declaration be made by the preacher:
Beloved: It behooves us, in this solemn hour, to appear before the Lord, the God of Heaven and earth, the source and giver of all good, who has given us the intention and ability to build a house for His name, and it being now accomplished by His help, to dedicate it to His service.
Although the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, for heaven is His throne, and earth His foot-stool; and the heaven of heavens may not contain Him, much less this house, prepared by our hands; yet He commanded His servant, Moses to build a tabernacle, and prepare a place for Him, where His honor should dwell and did, at the dedication of the tabernacle; and afterward, at the temple, sanction and confirm the work by the revelation of His glory; He also Subsequently, graciously accepted the worship and sacrifice offered, and blessed His people there. And our Divine Redeemer gives us the precious assurance that He will meet with his people where they assemble themselves.
Thus, encouraged and strengthened in faith, we have confidence that the most High, who inhabiteth eternity and dwelleth also in those who are of a contrite and humble spirit, to comfort them, will accept this house which we have built to His glory, at our hands, and regard it with His good pleasure, to the salvation and benefit of those who may from time to time here assemble to magnify His holy name.
Having this confidence, we now declare, designate and consecrate this house, as the (name of Church) of the Evangelical United Mennonites, (name of place) unto the Triune God, to be His sanctuary and dwelling place; where by the singing of His praise, the offering of thanksgiving, prayer, reading, expounding and preaching of His word, the administration of the sacraments, and the observance of such other devotional services, rules and customs, are as adopted and practiced in public worship by the Evangelical United Mennonites, agreeable with His Word, His honor shall be magnified, and His kingdom be built up to the salvation of men.
And that this dedication be confirmed by God, let us also consecrate ourselves, and all we are and possess, without reservation or condition, to Him as His property, and for His service, in accordance with His rightful claim, through the covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Then the congregation shall kneel in prayer to God to accept the offering. Doxology and benediction.
Appendix B – Instructions for Church Buildings – 1880
Chapter VII
Directions Concerning the Building of Meeting Houses, and Measures to be adopted.
Question: Is there anything advisable in regard to the building of meeting houses? Answer: Let all our buildings be kept plain, and not more expensive than necessary for comfort and health, and with free seats.
Question: How shall the titles of the Church property be secured and deeded? Answer: To a board of trustees and their successors in office, in trust, as the property of the Evangelical United Mennonite Society.
Question: How is the board of trustees to be constituted? Answer: The quarterly conference shall appoint a judicious board of trustees of three or more in number, as may be legally required.
Question: How long shall a board of trustees serve? Answer: As long as it is deemed advisable by the quarterly conference, and if no more advisable, others are to be elected; and in case of one of them die, or be excluded from the Church, or resign his office, the number shall always be kept up by new elections of the quarterly conference; and no person shall form a part of the board of trustees, who is not a member of this society. Whereever it is deemed necessary by the brethren of a charge or field to purchase a meeting house, graveyard or lot upon which to erect a house of worship, or a parsonage, it shall be the duty of the officials, to make it known to their quarterly conference.
Question: How are the trustees to proceed in building a meeting house or parsonage? Answer: No board of trustees shall commence building or purchasing lots, without first getting an act of incorporation when the law of the state requires it. They shall give an estimate of the necessary cost to procure the ground and the building of the house. They shall at no time proceed in the building of a house, before the means are at hand or sufficiently secured; and they must always secure a lawful title for the grounds upon which they intend to build, and when the means are sufficiently secured, they are to proceed according to instructions given by quarterly conference. The trustees shall hold annual meetings or oftener, as need be. They shall elect chairman, secretary, and treasurer from their number, and it shall be the duty of the secretary to keep a correct record of all the business transactions of the board, in a book provided for that purpose, which shall at all times be open for inspection by the quarterly conference of the charge. The treasurer shall receive funds for meeting house, cemetery and parsonage purposes, and pay out the same under the direction of the board, and report to the board the financial condition at their several meetings. The board shall make an annual report to the quarterly conference.