Page 56 - History of UB Church by A. Funkhouser Ver 1
P. 56
rule soon became a dead letter. For a while, the social meetings of the Methodists were closed
against the United Brethren. It is unfortunate that this reactionary policy arose, yet it has long
since passed away.
In the matter of church government, there is a difference between the United Brethren and the
Methodists. The former regard their system as the more democratic, and prefer it to the more
centrally organized system of the other church. Their bishop is chosen for a term and not for life;
their presiding elders are chosen annually; their congregations have more control over their local
concerns. They regard Methodism as autocratic, and yet the general efficiency of this feature has
contributed very largely to the phenomenal growth of the sister church.
The United Brethren have lost the characteristics that for several decades marked them out as
one of the German sects of America. Their very origin as a German sect is now almost lost to view.
But though the points of difference which once stood in the way of an organic union with the
Methodists have been removed, no action looking toward a merger has since taken place. But in
recognition of the fact that in spirit and polity the United Brethren are of the Methodist group of
churches, they were invited to send delegates to the Methodist ecumenical conferences of 1881
and 1891. For a rather technical reason Bishop Glossbrenner saw fit to oppose an acceptance.
About the year 1800, the Albright Brethren, a German speaking body of Methodists, seceded
from the parent denomination. In 1813 they had fifteen itinerants and about eight hundred
members. In April of this year Bishop Newcomer visited the Albright conference and received a
letter to be given the United Brethren conference of the same year. The latter assembly appointed
a committee of four, which met an Albright committee of the same size at New Berlin,
Pennsylvania. A discussion of several days did not reach any conclusion. The Albright General
Conference of 1816 adopted the name of Evangelical Association for their sect, and discussed the
proposed union. A committee of six persons from each church conferred in 1817 at the home of
Henry Kumler, but failed to come to any understanding, and no further negotiations appear to have
been attempted. The Evangelicals thought the working of the United Brethren itinerancy was too
lose.
The proposed merging of the United Brethren with the Cumberland Presbyterians, the Methodist
Protestants, and the Congregationalists, is a matter of very recent history. That a union with the
last named body did not take place is very easy to understand. The two denominations have
overlapped only in a very slight degree, and have been very little acquainted with one another.
There is a wide temperamental difference in the membership of the two churches. Among the
Congregationalists each local body is entirely independent of any other and in church government
is strictly democratic. There is much more in common between the United Brethren and the two
other denominations. That any merger failed even here is perhaps due to the denominational pride
that makes any form or degree of church unity very difficult to achieve in practice, although in
theory it may be warmly advocated.
Chapter XIV 56 Movements Toward Union with Other
Churches
against the United Brethren. It is unfortunate that this reactionary policy arose, yet it has long
since passed away.
In the matter of church government, there is a difference between the United Brethren and the
Methodists. The former regard their system as the more democratic, and prefer it to the more
centrally organized system of the other church. Their bishop is chosen for a term and not for life;
their presiding elders are chosen annually; their congregations have more control over their local
concerns. They regard Methodism as autocratic, and yet the general efficiency of this feature has
contributed very largely to the phenomenal growth of the sister church.
The United Brethren have lost the characteristics that for several decades marked them out as
one of the German sects of America. Their very origin as a German sect is now almost lost to view.
But though the points of difference which once stood in the way of an organic union with the
Methodists have been removed, no action looking toward a merger has since taken place. But in
recognition of the fact that in spirit and polity the United Brethren are of the Methodist group of
churches, they were invited to send delegates to the Methodist ecumenical conferences of 1881
and 1891. For a rather technical reason Bishop Glossbrenner saw fit to oppose an acceptance.
About the year 1800, the Albright Brethren, a German speaking body of Methodists, seceded
from the parent denomination. In 1813 they had fifteen itinerants and about eight hundred
members. In April of this year Bishop Newcomer visited the Albright conference and received a
letter to be given the United Brethren conference of the same year. The latter assembly appointed
a committee of four, which met an Albright committee of the same size at New Berlin,
Pennsylvania. A discussion of several days did not reach any conclusion. The Albright General
Conference of 1816 adopted the name of Evangelical Association for their sect, and discussed the
proposed union. A committee of six persons from each church conferred in 1817 at the home of
Henry Kumler, but failed to come to any understanding, and no further negotiations appear to have
been attempted. The Evangelicals thought the working of the United Brethren itinerancy was too
lose.
The proposed merging of the United Brethren with the Cumberland Presbyterians, the Methodist
Protestants, and the Congregationalists, is a matter of very recent history. That a union with the
last named body did not take place is very easy to understand. The two denominations have
overlapped only in a very slight degree, and have been very little acquainted with one another.
There is a wide temperamental difference in the membership of the two churches. Among the
Congregationalists each local body is entirely independent of any other and in church government
is strictly democratic. There is much more in common between the United Brethren and the two
other denominations. That any merger failed even here is perhaps due to the denominational pride
that makes any form or degree of church unity very difficult to achieve in practice, although in
theory it may be warmly advocated.
Chapter XIV 56 Movements Toward Union with Other
Churches
