A Guide for Union Church Conversations

Prepared for Use by the Commission on the Welfare of the Union Church (no date)

THE UNION CHURCH AND THE CHANGING AGE

The settlement of America and in particular of Pennsylvania began the process of “the changing scene”. From the time our Pennsylvania German ancestors chopped down the first trees and out of hewn logs built their rude homes, change has been a part of our American way of life. Now with the building of great highways, huge shopping centers and in some areas entire new communities the rate of change has accelerated.

Our forefathers were pioneers. They left the shores of Europe to establish new homes in a strange land. Today we often look backward and long for the days of the pioneers. In fact, in the church, we often try to keep all things exactly as they were in the day of the pioneer. Our fathers would be disappointed in us. They would want us to be pioneers in our own day as they were in theirs. They not only accepted change in life, but they brought about change. The disappearance of the wilderness and the appearance of villages, towns and cities were directly the result of their work.

In the middle seventeen hundreds in the midst of developing of Penn’s Woods, the German Lutheran and Reformed settlers began to form and build the Union Churches that we know today. There were few pastors available and the German immigrants were poor. The faith that was kindled in their hearts in the Fatherland was strong. They brought along with their Bibles and catechisms the desire for worship and education in the faith. Soon small congregations gathered together in the crossroads communities. A pastor visited every four to eight weeks.

Soon the people discovered that if they had a common house of worship they could afford to build one. They also discovered by attending each other’s services they could worship twice month rather than once a month. The Union Church, then, was born out of economic necessity rather than out of a sense of mission that the Lord has wanted us to be one church. Each denomination brought its own catechism and tradition.

The small congregations grew stronger and ministers became more plentiful. Some union Churches began to dissolve that each might call its own minister and reach out to a community where population was slowly but surely growing in numbers. Others have maintained the union to this day. They have found that it is cheaper to share a building and in most cases share a pastor with two or more congregations of the same denomination.

Scientific advance has brought rapid change in the life of the people of Pennsylvania which is unique in that it has aided in the increase of an already large production of farm produce, and yet at the same time has made the state an urbanized industrial area which leads the country in manufacturing. All this has occurred as the nation has passed from the age of the gasoline engine through the atomic age to the space age. While seemingly the church has changed little, there are many town and country churches, however, that have met the challenge of change by making adjustments in parish boundaries and in the ministry to the community through ecumenical cooperation.

Pennsylvania has increased in population from 10,498,012 in 1950 to 11,319,366 in 1960. The increase from 1960 to 1970 is expected to be even greater. In this period of expansion the membership of most Union Churches has not increased with the population growth.

On the American scene the church has been the institution most reluctant to change. Systems, methods, and ideas in many cases are as they were generations ago. One often hears the statement, “If it was good enough for my grandfather, it is good enough for me.” The present generation needs to recover the spilt of the pioneer. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers would not have made the “good enough” statement. They felt the methods of the day were not good enough. Therefore, they left their homeland and sought a new life in a new land. They looked forward and not backward. They call us to look forward.

Change is a vital part of the Christian faith. Our Lord has said, “Put off the old man and put on the new.” Indeed, His resurrection was to new life. We look to a pioneering ministry not based on economic necessity for the Union Church, but rather for a ministry unto newness of life through the risen Christ who is the head of the church.

COMMISSION ON THE WELFARE OF THE UNION CHURCH

Change which had become a pattern for American life accelerated greatly after the Second World War. New factories, new highways, new people and in some areas even new communities increased the pressure on the Union Church to submit to change. Potential members began to pass the Union Church and seek the active program of the one denomination church rather than adjust themselves to an alternating schedule for worship, a church school that may change its curriculum every two or three years, and a limited schedule of lay activities.

To help pastors, councils and consistories who then, even as now, faced changes that at times seemed overwhelming, representatives of synods of the Lutheran Church and the Evangelical and Reformed Church, now United Church of Christ, met in Reading, Pa. on April 13, 1945 and formulated six principles for the Union Church. On November 23, 1948, following an open meeting of pastors and laymen of both denominations which took place at Red Church near Schuylkill Haven on November 4, 1948, “The Commission on the Welfare of the Union Church” was formed.

The purpose of The Commission is to study the life and work of the Union Church so that there can be offered counsel and guidance for administration, worship, long-range planning and interdenominational relationships. To this end The Commission has provided for consultants who work directly with the congregations through a study committee. The Consultant for the Eastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Lutheran Church is the Rev. Fred S. Blank, Assistant to the President of the Synod and for Central Pennsylvania Synod of the Lutheran Church, the Rev. Martin L. Tozer, D.D., Director of Home Missions. The Consultants for the United Church of Christ are the Rev. Earl R. Marks, Assistant Conference minister of Penn Northeast Conference, the Rev. John C. Shetler, D.D., Assistant to the Conference Minister of the Pennsylvania Southeast Conference, and the Rev. Richard H. Whitney, Assistant to the President of Penn Central Conference.

As of January 1, 1968 there were 149 Union Churches in Pennsylvania and Maryland. They are divided among the Lutheran Synods as follows: Eastern Pennsylvania Synod 98, Central Pennsylvania Synod 45 and Maryland 6. The distribution among the United Church Conferences is as follows: Penn Northeast 54, Pennsylvania Southeast 44, Penn Central 43, Penn West 2 and Central Atlantic 6. Approximately 40% of these churches are in process of negotiation with the consultants.

The consultants enter into negotiations with a Union Church upon invitation of the council or consistory and the first meeting for the purpose of explaining the work of The Commission is a joint meeting of the council and consistory. The consultants do not come to tell a congregation what to do, but to assist and guide the local representatives in their own study, and planning. Consultants are always available to discuss any Union Church situation with pastors, official boards or congregations even though a study committee may not be in process. Union Church negotiations normally take from two to four years.

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES BEFORE A UNION CHURCH?

There are several alternatives before all Union Churches at all times. When consultations on the welfare of the Union Church take place, these must be considered. They are:

1. Make no change. Maintain the status quo.

2. Make some minor change and/or adjustments). For example – each congregation conduct a worship service every week; make improvements) in the Christian Education Program; adjust the charge or parish alignment; etc.

3. Enter into a self-study using forms prepared for the Union Church. Each congregation’s study committee prepares its own self-study and shares findings with the study committee members of the other congregation. The study committee discusses the implications of the findings at a regular meeting.

4. Dissolve the union relationship.

a. One congregation dissolves in order for its members to unite with the denomination of the other congregation. This makes possible a new congregation of one denomination. The Lutheran Church in America and the United Church of Christ have an understanding whereby the equity rights are transferred from the dissolving congregation to the new congregation by the Conference or Synod, without financial consideration. At times there may be an imbalance in a particular area but across the state and over a longer period of time balance is maintained. This balance may be not only in the number of congregations but also in the number of members in the congregations. The dissolution of one of the congregations in one area will be matched with the dissolution of a congregation of the other denomination in another area.

b. One congregation dissolves, moves out, and erects its own church building. When church relocation is involved, it is important to secure proper approval by the Conference or Synod and the Pennsylvania Council of Churches to assure adequate planning for overall community churching and elimination of unhealthy competition.

c. One congregation dissolves and unites with another of the same denomination nearby.

d. When two Union Churches in close proximity are involved, by mutual consent both congregations can consolidate so that one congregation of each denomination results. This can be effected by one of two (2) methods:

(1) Consolidation within a building – the members of one congregation unite with the congregation of the other denomination. The congregation changing denominational affiliation must dissolve so that consolidation can take place. This can be considered anywhere within the area of the Synod or the Conference involved.

(2) Consolidation within the charge or parish – members maintain their denominational affiliation, but transfer their membership to the building in which their denomination assumes full responsibility.

e. One congregation may disband, permitting its members to assume membership with a congregation of their choice.

HOW IS A UNION CHURCH STUDY COMMITTEE FORMED?

Constructive work for the welfare of the Union Church can be accomplished best through a study committee. This committee, properly authorized by the consistory and the council meeting separately, is the only group in a Union Church authorized to deliberate upon and make recommendations for the welfare of that Union Church.

HOW DOES THE STUDY COMMITTEE OPERATE?

The study committee is comprised of three persons from each congregation named as regular members of the study committee; one person from each congregation named as the alternate study committee member; and the pastor of each congregation. The study committee meets only when the consultants for The Commission on the Welfare of the Union Church are present. All persons should be in attendance, but only three (3) have right of vote, namely, the study committee members. Pastors and consultants have right of voice but not of vote.

Alternate study committee members have right of voice at all times, but vote only if one of the regular study committee members is absent. Alternate study committee members should attend all meetings to keep abreast of study committee de-liberations. Study committee membership is not limited to consistory and council members, but at least one member of each denomination on the study committee ought to be a member of the official board of that congregation at the time of his appointment. Members of the study committee are appointed for the entire period of discussions. If the study committee recesses at any time, membership does not expire but continues with the resumption of discussions.

Whenever a Union Church agrees to engage in study of its situation, it is wise not to make any major change or renovation until the results of the study are complete.

WHAT IS THE POWER OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE?

The only authority the study committee has is to engage in study of the union situation and make recommendations to official boards. The study committee is to be alert at all times to participate in responsible area planning and to make suggestions for the same to the official boards. Minutes of all the study committee meetings are recorded by one of the consultants while the other conducts the meeting. These roles alternate from meeting to meeting. A quantity of the minutes is mailed to each pastor (or designated person) for distribution to each member of the study committee and official board of that congregation. The consistory and the council are to discuss each set of minutes and give either approval or disapproval of recommendations as required. Council and consistory should not take action which limits the freedom for study and discussion by the study committee prior to the presentation of recommendations from the study committee. When congregational action is required, it is sought after recommendation is made by the study committee and majority approval is given by both the consistory and the council.

HOW ARE DECISIONS MADE?

Minutes of the study committee do not contain references to individuals and/or their comments relative to discussions.

Usually there are no motions since all action in the study committee is by common consent. Thus, any proposal arising out of the study committee is a union proposal. Neither consistory nor council should offer a proposal, since this would merely encourage discrimination and later might bring reproach to someone who was sincere in raising questions, issues, or suggestions.

All remarks made in the study committee meetings must be treated as confidential.

EQUITY

WHAT IS EQUITY?

Equity is the valuation placed on the total union church property, excluding the cemetery and personal property of either congregation, such as hymnals, vestments, literature, etc.

WHY SET EQUITY?

There are numerous, related, significant reasons why equity should be set on the Union Church property. If any renovation or building is contemplated, equity could determine whether such added expense is wise. At the same time it could serve as the base or the starting point, if renovation or building are decided upon, for future determination of equity. Equity is not market value. Neither is it insurance or replacement value.

The Union Church property normally is of value onlv to two groups, namely, one or the other congregation in the union arrangement. If any decision on dissolution is ever contemplated it is wise to agree on equity first. Agreement on equity may reveal what our forefathers volunteered for the Union Church property and what we in our generation have contributed toward it. Setting of equity may be the means whereby the boundary lines are clarified, the deed located and verified, and misunderstanding of financial support and records clarified, approved, or brought to a mutually, agreeable basis.

HOW IS EQUITY DETERMINED?

Experience has taught the Commission one successful way of establishing equity. It begins with a small group, the study committee, comprised of three members from each congregation.

Each member of the study committee is instructed to prayerfully, and conscientiously seek the figure that in his opinion he and his congregation would be willing to give or receive as his congregation’s share in the equity of the Union Church property.

The figure submitted is a figure on the total equity. Obviously each congregation owns one-half of the property and shares one-half of the equity. It is emphasized that the figure submitted is on a BUY or SELL basis. Either congregation should be willing to BUY or SELL on the approved equity.

Following careful instruction and after each member of the study committee has had adequate time to be prepared and permission having been granted by the council and the consistory, the study committee proceeds to set equity by one of several acceptable methods. Normally, we proceed as follows: Each member of the study committee puts his figure on a separate slip of paper. There will be six figures. The consultants gather the figures, add them, average them, and present the average figure. No one ever knows the individual figures submitted except the consultants.

If one or two figures are entirely out of line with the other figures. that is, extremely high or low, the consultants reserve the right to eliminate those figures.

The equity must first be approved by the study committee.

It is then presented to council and consistory for approval and then to the congregations, each one acting on the recommendation separately.

HOW LONG DOES EQUITY CONTINUE?

Usually equity is set for a five year period, however, an appeal for reconsideration can be presented at any time by either congregation. Up until that time when dissolution actually occurs the equity is considered a “gentleman’s agreement. Up until that time it is not a legal, binding agreement.

Ordinarily, however, if the economy of the nation continues in its present trend there is no need of reconsideration for as building costs rise the depreciation on the old building also increases. We believe under present normal circumstances, costs balance depreciation.

WHEN SHOULD EQUITY BE ESTABLISHED?

The consultants strongly stress that before either congregation in a union relationship makes a decision about its future that equity be approved. Human nature being what it is, we all prefer to buy at the lowest price and sell at the highest price.

Therefore, if either congregation has determined to buy or sell before equity is set, it will be more difficult to arrive at a fair equity figure. If you intend to continue to discuss your union relationship and meet the challenge of the changing day, then be sure to consider equity early in the discussions.

VOTING PROCEDURES

A congregation is a legal entity and acts as a body. Therefore in Union Church procedures the votes of each congregation are taken within the separate and distinct meetings of each congregation and are counted separately by respective representatives of each.

Each congregation has one vote (“YES” or “NO”), approval or disapproval, on each particular recommendation.

The vote is determined by a simple majority of those present and voting unless otherwise specified by the constitution and bylaws of the local church. A simple majority vote of approval by the members of one congregation means the recommendation has passed for that particular congregation. Approval must be given by both congregations of the Union Church for a recommendation to be approved on union matters. If one congregation disapproves, then the recommendation does not carry for the Union Church. If disapproval does occur, then the procedure of education and voting may be repeated when feasible.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE CONGREGATION

After the study committee is appointed the question arises, “How do we keep the congregation informed?” Immediately all sorts of rumors will spread through the congregation and the community. No method or system has yet been discovered in all of history to curtail or ban gossip.

Nevertheless, there are several ways to avoid uncontrolled rumors. When a study committee is approved and appointed, announcement of the same should be made by spoken word, bulletin and/or letter in each congregation in a similar way and, if possible, on the same Sunday. It would be helpful if the announcement in the bulletin in each congregation could be of the same wording. Explanation of what a study committee is could be made to the congregations. From the time of the appointment of a study committee, attention could be called to the fact that it is meeting, studying, and that just as soon as an agreement is reached or a proposal is to be presented, the congregations will be informed.

But, here’s the rub. Nothing specific can be reported to the congregations until a recommendation, approved by council and consistory, is. to be made to the congregations. For this reason minutes of all study committee meetings are recorded. Enough copies are always supplied for members of council, consistory and representatives of Conference and Synod. In this way each of them can be kept abreast of the discussions and at monthly meetings each group can be informed. Thus two-way communications, to some degree at least, can be maintained.

But people can be impatient. Some will think after the first meeting of the study committee all problems have been solved.

The truth is that negotiations on the average take from two to four years until a solution is reached. It is urgent, therefore, that meetings of the study committee be announced to the congregations and that the official boards read and discuss the minutes.

Normally the pastors are responsible for the printing of the church bulletin and the distribution of the minutes. By mutual agreement they can do much to satisfy the people with the news that can be shared. It is when people hear nothing of the proceedings that alarm and verbal reaction fill the vacuum.

If, and when, a recommendation is presented to the congregations, usually two congregational meetings are held in each congregation: one for discussion and one for voting. The consultants are present at their respective congregational meetings.

One of the consultants normally prepares a sample letter announcing and informing the memberships of the meetings. The same letter is to be mailed to both memberships on the same day.

If any action in the proceedings warrants the engaging of an attorney, one attorney will suffice; never engage two. The attorney’s chief task is to put into proper legal language that to which both congregations have already agreed.

Advertisement

Sarum Use, by H.R. Percival (1890)

Your anonymous correspondent can hardly expect me to restate  my argument which I hope most of your readers have more fully grasped; perhaps, however, it may not be amiss to point out one or two facts with regard to the Sarum Ritual. If its ultra-ritualistic and semi-superstitious character is to be exemplified, the rubrics for the procession on Palm Sunday are fully sufficient.

Anyone comparing these with the simple and dignified procession of the rest of the West will see the enormous difference. For corruption of doctrine, the peculiarities of the service for the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday is enough, although numbers of other instances could be cited. For the enthronement of superstition, the elaborate account of the supposed miracle of the bleeding crucifix for which a special feast day is appointed may suffice.

Why your correspondent was not familiar with these and dozens of other quite as flagrant examples, I cannot imagine. The study of almost any one of the so editions of which he speaks would have been sufficient. Your correspondent does not appear to be quite up to date in Liturgiology. Mr. St. John Hope, in his admirable monograph upon the English Liturgical Colours, has at last placed this question beyond all controversy. His conclusion in brief is this—but one thing is certain, and that is that white was the universal colour for Lent in England! Outside of this he shows there was almost no uniformity. Your correspondent will find a short resume of Mr. Hope’s article in the January number of the (English) Church Quarterly Review, written by Dr. Wickam Legg. Pray allow me before closing to point out to your readers just how far we have got on this Sarum question. We find that in the Prayer Book there are many peculiarities of the Roman Books and but few of the Sarum Books. An analysis of the Litany (for example shows that while there are traces of Sarum influences yet that in the main it follows the continental uses, and chiefly the German. I need not point out to students of Liturgiology how this happens to be the case. The same is true of a large part of the Prayer Book. While, then, it is readily granted that Sarum use had its influence in framing our present services, the statement (so often made and until recently so universally accepted) that Sarum Use was the basis of our Prayer Book appears to rest upon no foundation whatever.

What your correspondent says about the ready access that there is now to Sarum Books is, comparatively speaking, true, but here again we find ourselves faced by a tremendous difficulty. We have not only the Sarum Books but we have also contemporaneous descriptions of the services in different parts of England and these descriptions do not agree with the Sarum directions! I have digested a large number of these and shall hope some time to be able to speak with some positiveness upon the subject, but it is evidently the work of years; and until this is done by some one, mere statements, unsupported by contemporary writers, and only made by authors more than 300 years afterward, can be no proof of the even approximate universality of the Sarum Ritual. I should add that the extensive use of the Revised Sarum Psalter is not disputed.

I do not know whether any one else is pursuing his researches by the same method as myself. I hope others are doing so who have better opportunities of consulting rare books found only in the libraries of the Old World, but at least mine have gone far enough to shew the unreliability of most of what was called information upon the Sarum question.

I can well remember the time when I shared your correspondent’s views, and it was not until I had devoted more attention to the subject that I found I had been misled by similar false statements to those which are evidently now influencing him. In closing I would say that while my chief contention was the identity in all essential points of our present celebration of the Holy Eucharist with that of the past, I yet am of the opinion of those who considered that the Service Books of mediaeval England had become “corrupt” and “superstitious,” and that the ritual was often “barbaric” and “theatrical,” and therefore needed Reformation. Unless I misunderstood “Boston” he deems the Reformation un-called for and is one of those (I use his own rather curious expression) “Catholic Churchmen that look back with longing to the days when the Church of England held the Catholic Faith in its entirety.”

—Henry R. Percival, The Church Eclectic, May, 1890, pp. 171-173.

Thoughts on the Life of Henry Robert Percival, Priest, by Robert Ritchie (1903)

To know what is in every man’s heart, and so to be able to judge him, is a Divine prerogative which is extended to none but to the Son of Man. We read that oh a memorable occasion, when the sons of Zebedee, with their mother, had made a request of our Lord, the remainder of the Twelve were moved with indignation against the two brethren. Nevertheless, although from a worldly point of view their indignation would seem reasonable, they were not justified by the Master; rather, they were included in the correction which He administered. Both the two and the ten were thinking wrongly and about a forbidden subject. So it is when we attempt to judge one another.

When therefore we come, to review the life of one whom God has called put of this world we are not to be faulted for insincerity if we have nothing to utter but praise. We are not capable of estimating his character justly. We are liable to think there were faults when there were none. We are sure to be blind both to failings and to excellences. But we are not denied the great privilege of looking upon the magnificent gifts of God’s grace to His servant departed. We can rejoice greatly in the glories that are so revealed to us, and draw comfort and admonition to ourselves from what we do see.

In this spirit, not trying to be fair, but to be appreciative, we think of the life of our brother, who has gone to his rest.

Henry Robert Percival was born on the thirtieth of April, 1854. He was the son of Thomas Cuthbert and Elizabeth Percival, of old Philadelphia families. He was brought up religiously in the sound and godly teaching of the Church. From very early childhood the idea of serving God in the priesthood was instilled into him and embraced by his mind with enthusiasm. Very delicate bodily health might have seemed an obstacle, but happily it was not allowed to prevail. He wept to school at the Episcopal Academy in Philadelphia, and from there to the University of Pennsylvania, graduating Bachelor of Arts in 1872, at the early age of eighteen,. He took a post-graduate course in Latin with Professor Francis A. Jackson, and in due time was made Master of Arts. As he did not reach, the canonical age for the priesthood until six years after his graduation, there was time for a journey in Germany, Italy, France and England during the years 1874. and 1875.

It will be well understood by those who knew him that this was no idle holiday, but that his mind was then stored with treasures upon which he drew throughout his life. Ardently, with keen delight and most intelligent discrimination, be fed upon what was excellent in art, architecture and ecclesiastical tradition.

Returning to this country, he became a candidate for Orders in the Diocese of New York. His health precluding a residence away from home, he pursued his studies, privately, under the direction of Dr. Davies, now Bishop of Michigan, Dr. Hoffman, late Dean of the General Theological Seminary, and Dr. James W. Robins, then Headmaster of the Episcopal Academy. He passed his canonical examinations in the Diocese of New York and was ordained Deacon in 1877 and Priest in 1878, by Bishop Horatio Potter.

His first cure was the Parish of Grace Church, Merchantville, New Jersey. After a short time there he was associated with the Rev. G. Woolsey Hodge, at Christ Church Chapel, Philadelphia. But his chief pastoral work began in 1881 when he became Rector of the Church of the Evangelists, Philadelphia. In the early part of this incumbency there were oppositions and difficulties of a distressing nature arising from the strong and bitter Protestant feeling of some members of the parish. These people naturally felt that the sympathy of the majority of the Diocese and of its rulers was with them rather than with the young rector who was imbued with an earnest zeal for the true and ancient doctrines of Christianity. They therefore proceeded to great lengths, in litigation and in yet more questionable ways to oust the priest who had been duly chosen and appointed.

Dr. Percival in these trying times conducted himself with singular wisdom, discretion and charity. He held back nothing of the truth, but was careful to insist upon nothing that was not clearly essential. With dignity and gentleness he strove to persuade those who opposed themselves, and in fact converted not a few of them who with their children have continued to be faithful Catholics.

Dr. Percival’s conduct towards the bishop is in contrast to much that we have seen in other parishes. From the first he assured Bishop Stevens that any features of ceremonial to which he objected, if not clearly required by the Prayer Book or not essential, would be excluded from the services in the Church of the Evangelists. Thus for seven years there were no vestments, lights, nor incense. The Daily Sacrifice was offered and confessions were heard by a priest wearing a surplice and black scarf. Thus an example of obedience to authority was given which was perhaps more valuable than the lessons derived from a full presentment of the lawful external order.

It does not follow that such a course is best in all cases; but in this instance the sober sincerity and self-denial of the priest were made manifest, and the people were taught, in a very telling way, the relative proportion of obedience and mere ceremonial. When the time came, seven years afterwards, that obedience no longer required the sacrifice, it was announced, on the Sunday preceding All Saints’ Day, that on that Feast the lawful vestments and ornaments would be restored (not introduced) in the Church of the Evangelists. Dr. Percival, was a firm adherent to the law of the Church. He used such things because they were rightful, not because they were pleasing. And he knew the law better than most.

The things for which a faithful priest most deeply feels that he is responsible, the things of pastoral care, are not largely brought into general notice. His good work in the care of souls is done as it were, in secret. But enough is known of Dr. Percival’s pastoral labours to move us to great admiration and thankfulness. While his health permitted he was diligent in season and out of season. His visits, especially to the poor, were full of grace and kindness. “How he cheers me!” was the exclamation of one poor woman. Many rejoiced in the sweetness of his care over them. It was not his custom to give much money, but counsel, uplifting sympathy and tenderness.

In teaching, for which he had eminent gifts, he was most conscientious and successful. There were wonderful Friday night instructions, which were catechetical, from which many obtained a firm grasp of the truth. Daily Mass was the custom from the beginning of his incumbency, and Dr. Percival himself never failed to celebrate every morning except when physical conditions made it impossible. In his late years of increasing weakness and torture from disease, he had a chapel and an altar in his country home at Devon, duly licensed by the Bishop, where he stood morning by morning before the Lord and rejoiced in the performance of this chief priestly duty. 

Space would fail the writer to tell of the unproclaimed and loving, ingenious pastoral works which in the sight of Heaven adorned his life. We can only get hints and see a suggestive portion of the whole. He never thought he had done enough. He could not abandon his poor parishioners even when they were so unfaithful that it seemed useless to strive longer with them. In these things, as in all departments of his life he lived very near to the Good Shepherd.

The faithful pastoral work we have been contemplating was by no means all. As a scholar, in all manner of sacred learning, Dr. Percival excelled. Men of all schools and parties testify to this. There is only one voice. His great library he collected in his earlier years, constantly adding to it. and constantly both using it and allowing and encouraging the use of it by brother clergymen who were not so endowed. Five books from his pen give evidence of his diligence in study and his great ability. His firm faith in the Catholicity of the American Church is shown in these works, and the evidential value of that conviction lies in the fact, which his books also show, that he had a sound and well-founded knowledge of Catholicity. He knew whereof he wrote. The Doctrine of the Episcopal Church was followed by The Glories of the Episcopal Church. There is also a very useful Digest of Theology. These compendious handbooks were followed by a treatise on The Invocation of Saints, concerning which I will only say that it is as sound as it is fascinating, and that it is hard to understand how any one who will read it, with a mind that is open at all, can thereafter be willing to shut himself out from the privilege of asking for the intercessions of the Blessed. Dr. Percival’s last book was Vol. XIV of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, The Seven Ecumenical Councils. In this, his work of editing, with notes, has been very highly praised.

These five books do not begin to comprise all Dr. Percival’s writings. There were many magazine articles; notably a series communicated to the American Church Review on Canon Law, an irenical article in the Nineteenth Century, a number of unsigned articles, privately printed, on the Revision of the Prayer Book, a series of articles in The Churchman on Swedish Orders, which were afterwards put into pamphlet form, many Commentaries and Meditations, unsigned communications to The Guardian on the Clementine Liturgy, an Introduction, which is, perhaps, the most valuable part of the volume published by the Clerical Union under the title of Catholic Papers. There are also many manuscripts which have not yet seen the light, from which, it is to be hoped, we shall hear. He was on the editorial staff of Catholic Champion during its whole course, and a frequent contributor to other Church papers and magazines. He was always busy in his Master’s work except when his physical sufferings forbade. Nashotah Seminary conferred upon him the honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity, and never has it been more worthily bestowed.

Dr. Percival’s work was in great part, though by no means entirely, polemical, but the occasions were very rare in which he even unwittingly transgressed the line of courtesy, and whenever he was thought to have done so, he was most ready and even eager to make amends or to explain. He was, in the best sense, a broad-minded man, and all that he did and said and wrote was in the spirit of charity. This was realized by those who differed from him, and, of course, great persuasive power was thus added to all his contention.

The clergy; in large numbers, from bishops and heads of religious communities to the humblest fledgling priest, were enlightened, encouraged, consoled and strengthened by intercourse with this wonderful man. His beautiful and ever ready hospitality, in which his mother and sister most lovingly took part, made his home a haven for many priests, who will never forget the help and comfort bestowed on them in the house of this man whose body was so feeble, but whose heart and spirit were so mighty.

Endowed with a moderate fortune, Dr. Percival has left an example of liberality in many gifts to sacred uses; He also doubtless inspired others to join him in thoughtful and devout offering of their substance. It is impossible to give details, but it could not be hid that his was the moving spirit in the erection of two noble churches—the new Church of the Evangelists and St. Elisabeth’s—and that by his zeal and taste they were enriched with treasures of art. He was largely instrumental in the rearing and perfecting of the Church of St. John Chrysostom, and other parishes in their need were strongly aided by his exertions and his influence. It is impossible to say how many young men were guided and largely formed by him and led or assisted in many ways into the sacred priesthood.

In an important sense he was the founder of the admirable Congregation of the Companions of the Holy Saviour. Reflection upon St. Mark iii, 14, “He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach,” kindled the first spark of the fire of love that animates that useful and justly venerated religious body. Dr. Percival devoted himself in every way to its growth and welfare except that, because of his illness, he could not himself become a member. He would have been glad to do so, but, after careful consideration, was convinced that it must not be. The community residing at St. Elisabeth’s, Philadelphia, has affiliated priests in other places numbering about thirty. Its organization is chiefly pastoral and missionary. Its motto is “Ut essent cum Illo,” and as long as the sweet and ardent spirit of Dr. Percival remains with them they will be found faithful Companions of the Saviour.

The imperfect digestion, which, with many attendant ills, had been Dr. Percival’s drawback and torment, seemed increasingly to sap his strength of late years. For a year previous to his death this was especially remarked. Even the power of using his magnificent mind and acquirements seemed, to some extent, to be impaired. When; in the early summer, he left his city house to go to Devon, he expressed his own conviction that he would never return. And so it was. He was permitted to lay down his burden in peace on the afternoon of a beautiful day, September 22d, 1903, in his forty-ninth year. Is it not a strange and wonderful proof of God’s goodness that in these modern days, in the midst of materialism and worldliness and self-seeking, we have seen the shining light of a man whose natural brilliancy was enlightened by spiritual strength, his learning made glorious by the light of faith, his natural grace made the handmaid of an evangelical and soul-winning brotherly love, his earthly possessions turned into heavenly treasures, and even his bodily ills made the fuel of high spiritual attainments?

—Holy Cross Magazine (West Park, New York), November, 1903, pp. 37-40.

The Faithful Pastor’s Monument, by J.H.A. Bomberger (1852)

The Faithful Pastor’s Monument: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Death of the Rev. Thomas Pomp, for Fifty-Six Years Pastor of the German Reformed Church of Easton, Pa.
By J. H. A. Bomberger, Surviving Pastor of the Congregation.
Easton: Published by the Consistory, 1852.
Digitized by Richard Mammana, 2022.

Meniolagomeka

---

The Morning Call, July 21, 1968

---

Pennsylvania Dutch Dispute (New York Times, 1930)

To the Editor of The New York Times:

A letter from me concerning the dialect of the Pennsylvania Germans, or Pennsylvania “Dutch,” appeared in THE TIMES of July 7. This letter was rather extensively reprinted, particularly in the newspapers of Pennsylvania, the German-American newspapers, and a number of newspapers in Germany. But there are many additional facts that will appeal to these large circles of readers, especially those pertaining to the characteristics of this language and to several important works in the field which were not mentioned in my previous article.

Although, as stated in my other article, Horne’s Pennsylvania German Manual is, so far as I can learn, the only popular general manual that has gone out of print, there are a number of other important works on certain phases of the dialect that should receive serious attention. I refer especially to Lambert’s Dictionary of the Pennsylvania German Dialect and Fogel’s Proverbs of the Pennsylvania Germans. Both works were published in the annual volumes of the Pennsylvania German Society, whose present address is Norristown, Pa., and whose activities have recently been resumed more energetically under the executive and financial leadership of Ralph Beaver Strassburger of that city. Lambert’s Dictionary is in Volume XXX, published in 1924; Fogel’s work is in Volume XXXVI, which was issued only a few weeks ago.

Lambert’s work gives a very comprehensive, and, with one deplorable exception, correct system of spelling and pronunciation, and a list of about 16,000 dialect words with the definitions and derivations. There are some regrettable omissions, for instance “henn” for German “haben” (English “to have), one of the most distinctive words of the dialect. Nevertheless, the work is in the main a highly scholarly one and indispensable to every advanced student of the subject. Fogel’s work gives a very large number of the old and familiar sayings of these people, together with the English and standard German renditions and equivalents. It is of course delightful reading. This writer’s spelling and pronunciation, like Lambert’s, are correct in the main but are wrong in at least one extremely important respect.

The error committed by both writers is in the pronunciation of g in the middle of words. For all words they change it to j—the equivalent of the English y, instead of only in a few words—morje or marje; “morgen,” morning, and several other words, as was done by Horne, who was evidently a careful observer and spoke the dialect all his life.

The medial g sound varies somewhat in different localities, but in the main it has always been as follows: German g changes to dialect j, English y, in most words in which it follows a, especially in merje or marje, aerjets and naerjets; German morgen, irgend and nirgend; English morning, anywhere, and nowhere. It weakens and approaches but does not reach j after the front vocals, German e, i, ie, ei, ä, and ai. Examples: Rejer, leje (German Regen, legen, English rain, lay). The strong German ch sound remains after the back vowels, a, o, u, and au. Examples: Dialect Waage, Aage, froge; for German Wagen, Augen, fragen, and English wagon, eyes, to ask. The hard g sound, as in English, or almost the hard sound, occurs in words with double g, or words ending in el; Naeg’l, for nail, &c.

Professor Lambert says in his introduction, and correctly I contend, that the Pennsylvania dialect in the main is homogeneous, and not several distinct dialects, but he errs in saying it most closely resembles that of the Westrich section of the Pfalz, the portion west of the Haardt Mountains, which extend north and south, just west of Dürkheim and Neustadt.

Professor Fogel, in his introduction, reiterates a view he has held for years that there are two distinct dialects: the Palatine in Berks, Lehigh and adjoining Pennsylvania counties, and the Swiss Alemannic in Lancaster County and vicinity. If this were true, he should have presented two sets of proverbs in his work. But he says the quest for Alemannic proverbs gave unsatisfactory results, and he almost implies there are no Alemannic proverbs. May I suggest there was a very compelling reason for finding no such proverbs in Lancaster County? There are none; there is no Alemannic dialect there, save a very few surviving words. There is only one Pennsylvania German dialect, except for minor variations.

My own people lived in Lancaster County or sprang from there. The dialect we used differs only slightly from that further north. Moreover, a questionnaire I recently circulated in Lancaster County confirms the view that almost no Swiss dialect survivals remain. More than that, the Swiss vernacular was probably never used much in Pennsylvania. One reason was that the pioneers of Lancaster County, while natives of Switzerland, came by way of the Palatinate and sojourned there for several years; another reason is they were always outnumbered by the Palatines. Moreover, there was probably a recognition that the Pfalz dialect is inherently simpler, more euphonious, and in many other respects preferable to the Swiss.

CYRUS H. ESHLEMAN.
Ludington, Mich. Dec. 30, 1929.

The New York Times, January 5, 1930

“The Upper Places:” Nazareth, Gnadenthal and Christian’s Spring (1929)

“The Upper Places:” Nazareth, Gnadenthal and Christian’s Spring
By Elizabeth L. Myers
Easton: Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society, 1929.

Pennsylvania German Dialect Pseudonyms

Beam, C. Richard	15 Feb 1925	26 Jan 2018	Es Bischli-Gnippli
Dieffenbach, Victor	26 Oct 1882	26 Jun 1965	Der Oldt Bauer
Druckenbrod, Richard	29 May 1929	27 Oct 2003	Pit Schweffelbrenner
Erb, William H.	30 Apr 1870	31 Jan 1940	Der Gus
Frey, John William	23 Jul 1916	21 Aug 1989	Der Glee Bill
Graeff, Arthur D.	22 Sep 1899	28 Mar 1969	Der Dichter vun de Dolpehock, Der ewich Yeeger
Grumbine, Ezra L.	1 Feb 1845	16 Feb 1923	Wendell Kitzmiller
Grumbine, Lee L.	25 Jul 1858	18 Aug 1904	Old Schulmashter
Harter, Thomas H.	28 May 1854	31 May 1933	Gottlieb Boonastiel
Landis, Henry K.	1865	27 Dec 1955	Der Gross Henner
Miller, Harvey M.	27 Sep 1871	17 Jun 1939	Solly Hulsbuck
Rauch, Edward H.	1826	8 Sep 1902	Pit Schweffelbrenner fum Scheifeltown
Reitnauer, Clarence	12 Nov 1900	5 Apr 1989	Der Shdivvel Knecht
Rittinger, John A.	16 Feb 1855	29 Jul 1915	Joe Klotzkopp
Snyder, G. Gilbert	15 Jun 1897	17 Nov 1956	Die Wunnernaus
Swope, Pierce E.	15 Aug 1884	9 Dec 1968	Kaspar Hufnagel
Troxell, William S.	11 Jun 1893	10 Aug 1957	Pumpernickel Bill
Schuler, Henry A.	12 Jul 1850	14 Jan 1908	Der Kalennermann

This is a dynamic list open to corrections and additions. Please write to rjm45@columbia.edu with either.

Hutterite Colonists Move to Canada (1930)

We notice a report in several papers that the Mennonite colonies will soon move to South Dakota. There never was a Mennonite communistic community in South Dakota. For more than 50 years these people lived here but it was not long enough to learn that they are followers of Jacob Hutter not Menno Simon and are called Hutterite Colonies. What gave them the name Mennonites is because they are opposed to war. It may be of interest, at this time, when nearly all are gone, to know that in 1874 the first colonies were started at Wolf Creek and Bon Homme and the third one in 1879 at Elmspring. Bon Homme then branched out to Milltown, Rosedale, Maxwell and two colonies in Beadle. For a short time they had a colony at Tripp. Wolf Creek branched out to Jamesville, Tschetter Colony, Lake Byron in Beadle, one in Spink and the Richar Ranch at Forestburg. Elmspring branched out to Rockport, New Elmspring, Milford in Beadle. At the time the war broke out there were 16 communistic colonies in all. Today we have 11 at Winnipeg, 4 near Calgary, 12 near Lethbridge. Our visit to all these colonies in Canada with Mrs. about five years ago will always be a sweet remembrance. All branches of the Old Bon Homme colony settled don in Manitoba and those of Elmspring and Wolf Creek are all in Alberta.

—Mennonite Weekly Review (Newton, Kansas), June 4, 1930, page 1.

Hutterites Reestablish Homes in South Dakota (1936)

Having farmed in Manitoba and Alberta, Canada, for more than 15 years, a group of Hutterites, a socialistically inclined religious sect of Germans, are now returning to the plains of South Dakota because they believe that it is here that opportunity still knocks the loudest.

The recent migration of Hutterites has led to the establishment of a colony about 20 miles south of Alexander, near a companion group of Hutterites at Rockport. The newcomers believe that the best farm land is in South Dakota.

In the word of the Rev. Daniel Wipf, minister of the Rockport colony, “the new settlers think the land along the James river to be of the best in the country and highly suitable for their needs.”

Despite the fact that grasshoppers and dry weather have played havoc with farming, these hardy people have set themselves up in a colony of 12 or 15 families. Huge, modern barns house the livestock and there are man acres for grain and pasture.

At the close of the World War these Hutterites lived near Yankton, but immediately following the armistice they transferred to Manitoba, where they have farmed until the new movement began in the spring of 1936. Now they are firmly entrenched near Rockport and are putting the finishing touches to a number of new buildings and improvements.

It is expensive work to move a large colony from Canada to the United States, but the Hutterites now believe they have found the “promised land.”

The Hutterites were not known by their present name until 1774, when Jake Hutter, a religious leader, led a band of his followers to Russia in order to escape persecution in Germany. There the Hutterites lived, speaking their own dialect of German, for 100 years.

At the end of a century in Russia, the Hutterites came to the United States to settle near Yankton. Others sought different locations and today there are communities near Alexandria and Tyndall in South Dakota, and in Iowa and Mexico.

The Hutterites are similar to the Mennonites in race and religious creed. But the Mennonites are not as socialistic as their brothers. A man may own private property, earn his own living and put money in the bank if his efforts are successful. But the Hutterites differ.

In their colonies everyone works for the benefit of the community. No one owns personal property. It is perhaps the one example of pure, unadulterated socialism in its Utopian conception.

The elders of the community elect by vote a business manager, a chief thresher and a head farmer. These offices, like those of the United States supreme court, are for life, governed of course by good behavior. The leaders govern the colony and see that harmony is maintained.

Each community has two ministers who are selected from the seven members best qualified for that position. They are chosen by the men and hold their title for life.

The colony of Rockport, perhaps one of the best known in the state, is an excellent example of prosperity under the Hutterite code. Situated in the beautiful country along teh James river, it boasts a flour mill which draws trade from many of the farms nearby. Its livestock would gladden any farmer’s heart.

One building is utilized as a laundry and another as a baker. There is a community shoe shop and a church which is also the school. Children receive a fair education, both in English and in German. German school is taught in the summer and a teacher is hired for the usual school term.

Very religious are the Hutterites. Sundays are devoted to their teachings, with services in the morning and in the afternoon. In their every day life these Germans live up to their ideals. Physical punishment is unknown. If a member commits a minor offense he may put himself in the good graces of the community again by asking for universal forgiveness from all of the members.

A Hutterite may leave the colony if he sees fit, and he may return if he doesn’t find his lot outside the group enjoyable.

The Hutterites are almost self-supporting. Except for a few minor articles, everything for their use is made at the colony. Their garments, quaint in design, are home made.

The women are clothed in dark dresses that reach to their ankles. All wear an apron and perhaps the most striking part of their costume is the small, tight-fitting hood on every head. Invariably it is dark blue with white polka dots. It fits on the head like a boy’s skating cap. The small girls dress exactly like their mothers and go barefooted.

A cluster of these small children with their bashful eyes and quiet manners is especially pleasing to the tourist.

The men and boys dress alike in blue broadcloth shirts, dark trousers and suspenders. Most of the boys wear shoes. The babies and small tots just learning to walk parade about in bright colored dresses of some cheap material.

One thing that strikes the visitor agreeably is the politeness of these settlers and the willingness in which they will explain their community. Cameras are almost taboo, the tourist being allowed to take pictures of the buildings and grounds but not of the people. They explain the reason for this is that pictures or images of any sort are contrary to religious beliefs.

Altho the Hutterites live in a fashion strange to the majority of persons and hold customs which seem peculiar, much can be said in favor of their industrious nature and farming ability.

They are shrewd and hard workers. They are proud of the fact that not once during the depression and drought have they asked for aid from the relief agencies. The well kept livestock and the expertly-tilled fields that greet the visitor to their communities prove that their efforts have not been in vain.

—The Weekly Pioneer-Times (Deadwood, South Dakota), September 24, 1936, p. 4.