the way they chose

8/8/2019 The Way They Chose...

1/25

The Way They Chose:

The Creation of the Eastern Pennsylvania

Mennonite Church

Benjamin Paulding

Senior Year Research Project

May 1, 2009


2/25

Introduction

Historysome enjoy reading about it, listening to old folks discuss days gone by, or learning

about it by watching educational videos and television programs. Some are content to leave history

in the past and focus on the present. But none can ignore the impact history has had on our society:

our present condition has been sculpted and formed through past events. This is not only the case in

social, economic, or civic history, but also extends to Church history.

Church history can aid us today in making both everyday and long-term decisions. Christians in

the past have proven that that they are not immune to making errors, and as such, they have left us

an extensive resource of free lessonsthey have made mistakes, none of which you or I must re-

live. Yet, on the other hand, we can also observe and learn from their successes. We will be more

effective Christians as we align ourselves with Gods Word, and the biblical principles that have

been proven over time. I believe that a study of this nature is important, and will be beneficial to

the reader. I am convinced that as we move forwardlooking back into Church history, we will

not be too quick to stumble in our walk with Christ.

Through this narrative, I will endeavor to relate to you the story of a group of Anabaptist

Christiansi.e., the Lancaster Mennonite Conferenceand a faction within that desired to preserve

what they envisioned as the fundamental and essential principles of the Christian faith. These

desires, coupled with the experiences of this core group, eventually gave rise to the formation of the

Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church.

Paulding 2


3/25

The National Scene

Our study of Lancaster Mennonite Conference (LMC) takes place during the 1950s and 1960s,

a time in US and World history where many forces were at work on the Christian Church. While

the Church, being in the world but not of the world, must always be vigilant, this was a time in

history like no other. A long and bloody war was being fought in the Far East, technology was

quickly developing and finding its way into the homes of average Americans, civil rights for

African Americans and women were being gained after decades of hard fighting, and much more.

All of these elements had impact on the LMC, and the core group withinthose dedicated to

preserve the conservative disciplines of their fellowship.

This time period was obviously one of change. In fact, progress in technology had been

accelerating rapidly ever since the Civil War. For example, the preceding decades had made the use

of electricity practical: by this time, most American homes utilized electric lights, fixtures, and

outlets. The use of candles and oil lamps belonged to yesterday, along with a myriad of other such

household amenities, which were readily replaced with modern conveniences. The introduction of

the automobile and airplane made transportation easier, more comfortable, and, by far, faster than

ever before. International communication was now a snap due to Bells ingenious telephone.

America had never been better informed; now anyone could keep up with the latest news using their

radios and new television sets.

Change was not limited only to technology. On the home front, Rosa Parks refusal to change

seats while riding in a bus made national headlines, fueling individuals in their fight for civil rights.

Eventually, these endeavors were rewarded when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, proscribing racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment

(Wikipedia.com).

Paulding 3


4/25

Within ten years America had fought two wars on foreign soil (WWII, and Korea), and once

again, she was overseasthis time in Vietnam, fighting to impede the spread of communism.

America was losing troops as quickly as they could be replaced. Thousands of families were

touched by the loss of a brother, husband, or father, while many soldiers were daily seeing their

comrades maimed and killed in the frequent ambushes the enemy laid out for them. Antiwar

sentiment mounted and demonstrations erupted in many areas.

During the two decades between 1950 and 1970, America saw dramatic social changes,

especially among its youth. This was expressed in the clothing, music and movies of Americas

young people. The young people of the 50s would be the teachers, businessmen, church leaders

and politicians of the 60s and 70s, and many were doing their best to shake off many of the

traditions and restraints that were common of their parents and grandparents. This revolutionary

attitude was not limited to America: countries worldwide were experiencing the same phenomenon.

While conservative Mennonite culture routinely kept the ways of the world at arms length,

these developments had an impact on conservative Mennonite culture. In the early 1960s H.

Howard Witmer stated, [The] Lancaster Conference is facing a very critical period in her history.

Its geographical borders are extending. It is reaching many and varied cultural groups: rural, urban,

inner city, northern and southern climes, Negro, Spanish and deaf All of this demands strong

leadership (Ruth 1095). Indeed, it did. And it was largely due to the cultural pressures born by

exposure to these elements that the Lancaster Mennonite Conference would face a terrific

challenge. Would LMC be able to hang on to the conservative traditions it had maintained for years

in the face of this challenge? By the end of this decade, some within the conference would call

attention to their leadership giving way to outside pressures (Lehman 14).

Paulding 4


5/25

A Glimpse At The LMC

Lets look at some distinctive beliefs and practices that were common among the membership of

the Lancaster Mennonite Conference of the 1950s and earlier. The great majority of the leaders

and members of LMC especially endeavored to apply every principle taught in Scriptures to their

lives. Perhaps the most important and impactful of these was the practice of Separation from the

world (this was also known as nonconformity, and was a practice based on their interpretation of

several key texts: to name three, John 17:16; II Corinthians 6:17; and Romans 12:2). LMC used

this following excerpt from the 1921 Garden City Convention to summarize their beliefs regarding

separation: We believe that we are called with a holy calling to a life of separation from the world

and its follies, sinful practices, and methods (WikiSource.org). To a member of LMC, keeping

oneself separated from the world meant living, working, schooling, eating and worshiping apart

from those that were not members of LMC or conferences with similar cardinal principles. A

distinctive garb was worn by all members. Many went to public school, but some were enrolled in

LMC sponsored grade schools. Higher education was generally not encouraged. Marriage outside

the conservative Mennonite church was forbidden. Most worked on family farms, away from the

influences of urbanization and the sinfulness of the world. While most denominational Christians

of that day practiced some degree of separation from the sinfulness of the world, total separation

was a real way of life for members of LMC, and in many ways, was a test of membership.

Another cardinal principle was that of nonresistance. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus

revealed to his disciples that the kingdom of God was one where enemies were to be treated kindly,

to the extent that if the outer garment was taken, the middle garment was to be offered. If one

cheek was slapped, the other was to be turned. If one was persecuted, prayer was to be offered for

the persecutor. These teachings were revolutionary to Jews and Gentiles alike, yet Jesus was not

Paulding 5


6/25

the only one who taught them. In fact, the principle of nonresistance is taught in one way or another

in every epistle between the gospels and Revelation, and can even be traced back to the Old

Testament. LMC members held fast to the principle of nonresistance. A member would act as a

witness in a civil court of law, but would not file suit against a fellow believer or a non-believer. As

their fathers before them, they would gladly suffer great abuse and persecution from governments

and fellow men without retaliation. They would not fight in wars or participate in any function or

profession that supported the war effort, including Red Cross, munitions manufacturing or the

Construction Brigades.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the cardinal principles of separation and non-resistance were

tested in remarkable, if not very subtle ways. The war in the Far East was a direct challenge to

these principles. As the Vietnam War heated up, many Americans were drafted into military

service. To reaffirm their strong sentiment of nonresistance, the LMC ministry continually

reminded its membership that nonresistance was a biblical principal, and thus, remained a test of

membership (Kraybill). This meant that no LMC member (whether drafted or recruited) could

serve in the military and remain a member of the church.

Since Mennonites were not excluded from the draft, many were inducted to serve in the

military. Though some LMC members yielded to the pressure from the U.S. Government and its

citizenry, the majority of Mennonites drafted registered as conscientious objectors (COs) and chose

another way to serve their country.

Because LMC members had for decades lived a life of practical separation from the world, they

were affected socially during this period in less direct ways. These indirect influences included

teaming up with missionaries on the foreign field that hailed from less conservative backgrounds,

where separation from the world was not so thoroughly enforced. Advertisements on the radio and

Paulding 6


7/25

in the newspapers and periodicals of the time were increasingly worldly. Higher education, while

generally not encouraged among LMC members, was not unknown in their circles, and was

becoming increasingly secular, filling the minds of students with a wisdom that was not always

godly. Urbanization was drawing the young men and women away from the family farm, which for

decades had been a safe haven for those that went before. The nature of these indirect influences

was subtle, and thus, many did not anticipate the affect they would have. Teaming up with

Christians on the foreign mission field that were not living a life of real and practical separation not

only affected the LMC missionaries, but also those they communicated with on the home front.

Similarly, those who went on to university or to work in the town or city also became more cavalier

about the cardinal doctrine of separation. Slowly, these influences began to erode the fundamental,

cardinal, and long standing beliefs among many members of the LMC.

To more conservative elements, television and other forms of mass media threatened to become

avenues of worldly influence into the Mennonite community. Among the LMC membership, there

were those who were advocates of accepting the television into the Mennonite home. Minister

Mahlon Hess was one of them. In one of the LMCs monthly periodicalsThe Missionary

MessengerHess wrote the time may be here when we ought to give consideration to our share

in strengthening the gospel witness on television. Apart from this, I believe we ought to begin to

help our people to make proper use of this powerful medium (23). There was also the influence

from other churches. Some conservatives felt that the LMC was giving undue hearing to liberal

influences and voices from outside the conference, including [the] MCC (Ruth 1074). The

MCCMennonite Central Committeewas a loose affiliation of Mennonite and Brethren

churches, some of whom allowed and advocated television use and ownership.

Paulding 7


8/25

For the conservative element within LMC, separation from the follies of this world was

synonymous with abstinence from television use and ownership. In 1962, Bishop J. Paul Graybill

wrote to the Churchs youth, So much of the moving pictures are of a sinful nature that they are

certainly not becoming for a Christian person to see. So many of the things in the movies appeal to

lust and sinful carnality that it is not good for a Christian to see those things and fill his mind with

them. They become a constant temptation in ones thought life (Graybill 10). Regardless of

members who advocated using the television and radio, these conservative Mennonites suspected

that a radio or television in any home would become an open door for evil influences. Thus, it came

about that the Conference decided that persons owning a television were not to be allowed in

fellowship, while radio was simply discouraged by the majority (Graber 4).

Paulding 8


9/25

The Growing Gulf

As the decade turned, the faction within the LMC became increasingly concerned about the

disregard for the Church discipline, particularly in the area of separation. In 1960, Bishop J. Paul

Graybill wrote, Nonconformity is quite an issue in our conference today Many are openly and

defiantly disregarding church standards and Bible principles. This is no good omen (Ruth 1074).

The church standards and Bible principles mentioned by Graybill were foremostly rooted in [the

LMCs] Statement of Christian Doctrine and Rules and Discipline (Christophel 9). This

Statement of Christian Doctrine and Rules of Discipline (Discipline Statement) was occasionally

revised in order to follow the changes in technology and convictions. It could be said that the

contribution that this writing made to the Lancaster Mennonites way of life was only second to the

Bible. Many felt that without this booklet, and the principles and disciplines outlined therein, the

conference would have begun to deteriorate quickly. Thus, when parts of this document were

omitted or disregarded, it truly was no good omen.

A growing number of conservatives worried that a main contribution to the deteriorating

condition of the Conference was due in part to increased involvement with the Mennonite Central

Committee. This group was primarily composed of members whose discipline and standards were

more relaxed than the LMCs. According to author Daniel Lehman increased cooperation with the

MCC brought about a shift in thinking, not only in relation to mission polity, but also in relation to

church standards. Church discipline weakened, and ecumenical involvements increased (4).

The results of this shift were becoming more noticeable. The Conferences high school,

Lancaster Mennonite School, became a place were youth followed and created fads and style trends,

much to the alarm of the principal, J. Paul Graybill. Finally, as John Ruth relates, the distressed

principal, J.P., as LMS students often called him, went into the chapel, and called for a

Paulding 9


10/25

showdown. The students who would not comply with the required modest dress, as was outlined

in the Scriptures and the Discipline Statement, would have to stay away from the school. No

longer would any fads or trendy styles be tolerated. Principal Graybill then encouraged them to

Yield entirely, and see what God will do for you. This demand did not produce compliance

among the student body, and after six weeks, the disappointed Principal Graybill resigned from his

responsibilities at LMS, and his more liberally minded friend, Amos W. Weaver filled his vacancy

(1051).

However diverse the reasons, LMCs ministry was steadily losing their enthusiasm and fortitude

to enforce the principles that for so long had distinguished and defined their group. Instead of the

strong leadership conservatives had hoped would uphold the Churchs standards and discipline, a

number of the ministry compromised or even opposed what was right (Lehman 5). Although

some of the bishops continued supporting the Discipline Statement, others stated that, Theres not

much we can do about it (Lehman 6).

During World War II, the Mennonite Central Committee and several other peace church

groups established a program known as Civilian Public Service with the government for their

conscientious objectors as an alternate to serving in the armed forces. Eventually, in 1951, the

government established another program for conscientious objectors called 1-W service. According

to Daniel Lehman, under the provisions of this program

The government granted conscientious objectors the privilege to be employed in

charitable, health, social welfare, educational, and scientific work.

Along side of this, the Mennonite Church launched the Voluntary Service program,

which integrated 1-W workers with the service efforts of the church. Volunteers gave

Paulding 10


11/25

their wages to the church, thereby providing funds for various service projects under the

churchs direction. The church paid the volunteers living expenses. (2)

Once the Vietnam War draft was administered, most of the drafted LMC young men applied for

CO status, and some enrolled as 1-W workers, while others enrolled in Voluntary Service for two

years. To the more conservative element, these MCC sponsored programs (both their 1-W and

Voluntary Service units) did not provide adequate accountability for the young men through church

oversight, and so, improper behavior was often left unaddressed and undisciplined. According to

Daniel Lehman, these deficiencies in the operation of the Voluntary Service units were a growing

concern to the conservative element in Lancaster Conference. These units mixed young people

from varied backgrounds and levels of conviction. Negative peer pressure often moved standards of

conduct toward the lowest common denominator (Lehman 5). Too often, the supervision by the

Church was not sufficient enough to keep the boys in Voluntary Service encouraged to participate

in godly activities during non-working hours. It has been said that this was in part due to the fact

that the majority of these 1-W and Voluntary Service units did not provide a home-like setting,

which in theory would have furnished these young men with the structure necessary for a life away

from home (Lehman 5).

In the LMC Voluntary Service units, unhealthy trends went unchecked, and in turn, these

trends affected the lives of those back at home (Lehman 5). Upon returning from service, many

young men did not feel at home or did not return to their former congregations Others who

stayed with the church seemed disillusioned with their purpose (Christophel 44). This continued to

the point where a disappointed minister stated: The 1-W program is nothing but an embarrassment

to me. Conservative Voluntary Service members were also frustrated with the efforts of many in

Paulding 11


12/25

the Church ministry who, in their opinions, had too relaxed an attitude with regards to enforcing the

Discipline Statement (Lehman 4-5).

There was, however, a group of bishops within the LMC that strongly desired to maintain the

Discipline Statement. Among these were those who later founded the Mennonite Messianic

Mission (MMM): Homer Bomberger, Aaron Shank, Simon Bucher, Isaac Sensenig, and Benjamin

Eshbach. These bishops were united in their concern for the growing disregard among ministers to

preserve conservative convictions. Several instances proved examples to them that this concern

was real, and alarming. One of the first came about when several LMC families in the Rohrerstown

congregation purchased televisions and set them up in their homes. This was definitely against the

rules, and they knew it very well. When Bishop Eshbach heard of this, he excommunicated all 17

individuals after they refused to conform to the pattern provided by the Discipline Statement

(Christophel 16)

Another unsettling matter came about at the Rohrerstown congregation several years later in

1965, when several youth applied for baptism and church membership. Of those youth, a number

were not dressing in the manner outlined in the Scriptures and Discipline Statement, and so, Bishop

Eshbach would not proceed with their baptisms. Over the next year, violations of the Churchs

dress standards continued within the brotherhood notwithstanding the efforts of bishops like

Eshbach who endeavored to preserve the Conferences conservative lifestyle.

Meanwhile, there were others who did not support Eshbachs actions. Perhaps the most adverse

of these was Bishop Christian Lehman, the senior bishop for the flock that Eshbach helped to

oversee. Lehman was of the opinion that those excommunicated should still have been allowed in

fellowship (Christophel 17). About this time, the Bishop Board began to receive complaints from

those who sympathized with the television owners, demanding that they intervene, desirous of a

Paulding 12


13/25

more relaxed attitude toward the excommunicated. The Bishop Board, however, made it known

that they solidly supported the actions and endeavors of Eshbach. But the complaints continued to

come in, which in time caused a noted change in the responsiveness and support that the Bishop

Board gave to Eshbach (Christophel 17-18).

Paulding 13


14/25


15/25

the highest priority. There were two main reasons that the MMM Board chose to have a Voluntary

Service unit rather than a 1-W unit. The first was that the Voluntary Service program gave young

men the chance to contribute their time and money to the cause of the church. A young man who

enrolled in Voluntary Service donated all of his earnings to the MMM, which in return, provided

food, shelter, and other necessities. The second reason was that the Voluntary Service program

only attracted those who were serious in their walk with Christ. The idea of serving the church and

the community with no reimbursement was not attractive to those whose motivations were material

gain and boosting their social status (Lehman 25, 26).

When the MMM Board heard of a request for 1-W workers at a hospital in Wilmington,

Delaware, they felt this was Gods leadingthis was the place to establish their Voluntary Service

unit. Here the members of Voluntary Service would work in the Wilmington Medical Center

helping to care for the patients, and assisting doctors and nurses in their duties. Thus, the MMM

Board established a relationship with the Selective Service, and in January of 1967, four young men

began their Voluntary Service terms in Wilmington (Lehman 19-23). Much to the pleasure of the

conservatives involved with the MMM, the environment of the Wilmington Unit did prove to

furnish a disciplined and structured life for the Voluntary Service boysyoung men who had

dedicated themselves to serving Christ and His Church. For these young men there were a few

rough times, but as the unit continued to grow, and another unit was established in Danville,

Pennsylvania, it became apparent that this Endeavor of Faith had been a great success (Lehman

61-68, 82).

Paulding 15


16/25

The Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church

In the year of 1965, the LMC Bishop Board appointed a revision committee, responsible to

review and revise the Conferences Discipline Statement. Their revision was to be presented to the

Conference ministry for acceptance in three years. At the end of the three year revision, the

presented Discipline Statement did not support the position that conservatives had maintained

against the use of the television, fashions in clothing, and against divorce and remarriage in the

church. If this Discipline Statement was approved, the more traditional in the ministry could, in

theory, no longer discipline members who partook of the above on the basis of transgressing the

Conferences Discipline Statement (Christophel 77, 78).

When it was time to vote regarding the acceptance of this revised discipline on July 17, 1968,

283 ordained brethren backed this revision with their votes while only 37 found the revision

simply unacceptable. On August 15, the LMC Bishop Board received a letter from the MMM

bishops by which they submitted their resignations from all conference committees on the basis

that, since the new Discipline Statement was basically a statement of recommendation rather than a

statement of requirements, they deemed their withdrawal obligatory (Ruth 1097). At a Bishop

Board meeting held September 17, 1968, Bishop Aaron Shank, reading a letter from the MMM

bishops, asked the Bishop Board if they would grant the Bishops of the Mennonite Messianic

Mission an honorable release from relationship with the Lancaster Conference, for the purpose of

functioning within the objectives of the Mennonite Messianic Mission organization (Christophel

82).

After much discussion, the Bishop Board did not feel inclined to allow the requested departure:

Paulding 16


17/25

One bishop asked the four [at this time, the fifth, Simon Bucher, was aged and experiencing

ill health, and was unable to attend to the affairs of the LMC or MMM], What would it take

to keep us together? Aaron Shank, speaking for the MMM bishops replied that There are

two ways of leaving the Conference one is to leave her doctrinal practice and the other is

to separate from the organization, Further, he pointed out, that the Discipline states that

divorced and remarried persons with their former companions living may not be received

into the Church and that if Brother --- does not correct this irregularity in his District, he has

left the Conference doctrinally on this point. The Discipline also states that sisters hair

shall not be cut and if Brother --- continues to give communion to such sisters, he has left

the doctrinal position of the Conference on this point. The Discipline also states that jewelry

shall not be worn and if Brother --- does not correct this situation, he has left the Conference

on this point. If these and such like departures from our doctrinal positions would be

corrected and we could stand together in upholding our standards, there would be no need

for the proposed separation (Christophel 82, 83).

Following Aaron Shanks address, the Bishop Board gave no indication that the Conference

would endeavor to repair her shifting standards, and there seemed to be an increased sentiment

among the bishops in favor of granting the MMM and recommending before the Conference body

the requested release. The very next morning, September 18, the Bishop Board met to put the

decision to a vote, which, being passed was to be presented before the Conferences ministerial

body the following day (Christophel 83).

Daniel Lehman comments, Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this

wall? Ezras adversaries asked (Ezra 5:3). As in Ezras time, the question of authority was raised

Paulding 17


18/25

as a challenge to the MMM regarding their action in leaving conference to form a separate church

group (Lehman 82). However, unlike the majority of church splits, this division was very

different, to the point where it has even been referred to as An Amiable Mennonite Schism

(Graber). According to John L. Ruth, Those departing had no desire to create a furor The

shameful bickering that would have been reported in the press or a gossip network had been averted

by a process of brotherly respect. Rather, Bishop Homer Bomberger expressed gratitude for the

LMC bishops toleration with the MMM and those whose main objective was to maintain Bible

principles (Ruth 1097, 1098).

Finally, with the air full of foreboding the day of the official division, September 19, 1968,

dawned on the Lancaster Mennonite Conference: on this day the Annual Fall Conference was to be

held. The LMC moderator, Bishop David Thomas, addressed those in attendance, confessing in a

tone of kindness and respect for all that he had to repent from wounded pride over seeing such

a division come while he was moderator. He then acknowledged that, The decision we make

today will be written in large letters on the scroll of church history. Moderator Thomas then

emphasized that it had been with intense concern, love, and open sharing that the bishops had

voted twenty-two to four to release those wishing to withdraw from conference.

Quivering voices from the floor responded to this announcement with more tears than

one elderly minister had ever seen at a conference session. If this is not a withdrawal,

came one question, what is it? Moderator Thomas replied that it did indeed feel like

failure, but that the bishops were acting in a manner that they thought would be least

hurtful to the flock (Ruth 1097).

Paulding 18


19/25

It was at this time that the matter of honorably releasing the MMM bishops was taken to vote

among the ordained ministers via secret ballot. After the vote was taken and all had been tallied,

the moderator, Bishop David Thomas, dolefully proclaimed the results: 281 YEA, 32 NAY, thus

securing the honorable release for the MMM bishops. With the close of this service, the Lancaster

Mennonite Conference and the MMM parted ways, never to meet so again (Christophel 84).

Over the next eight months, the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church (the MMM having

created and merged into this group) and the Lancaster Mennonite Conference worked together to

determine which congregations would be leaving the Conference, and which meetinghouses ought

to be transferred to the ownership of the EPMC. And so, with the close of the year 1969, the EPMC

had a membership of approximately 1,000, attending 27 congregations across Pennsylvania,

Delaware, and Illinois (Christophel: EPMC statistics).

Paulding 19


20/25

Forty Years Later

From its humble beginnings in 1968, the EPMC has grown to include 5,261 members attending

77 congregations in the United States, Canada, Paraguay, Guatemala, and the Bahamas

(Christophel: EPMC statistics). The Statement of Discipline is remarkably similar to that of the

LMC statement of the mid 1950s, with some clarifications and modifications regarding

technologies since that time. To this day, the bishop leaders of EPMC have stood strong regarding

conservative Mennonite values, disciplines and restrictions.

There remains a distinctive garb, which an observer will recognize immediately by virtue of

mens plain hat and dark non-descriptive, yet neat clothing. Women wear a head covering and cape

dress made with subdued floral patterns or solid colored fabrics. No one wears jewelry of any kind.

Vehicles are dark in color and have no radios or sport car features. The home is practical,

functional and has a warm, welcoming feeling, due in part to the dcor, but primarily to the

inhabitants.

The church service is formal and structured: segregated seating is still observed, and a cappella

worship remains the sole means of worship in song. Closed communion is practiced twice yearly,

preceded by a council meeting where each member will consider the condition of his or her heart,

forgive and reconcile with others, if necessary, all in preparation to participate in communion.

Nearly all will remain for some time after service to fellowship and enjoy each others company and

council. Brotherhood assistance is practiced rather than members purchasing health or general

liability insurance. Members give much of their personal income cheerfully to support each other

and to national and international disaster relief programs. For those who experience the loss of

property or of a loved one, there will be many that show up to rebuild structures or to bring comfort.

Clearly, the vision of the founders of EPMC lives on.

Paulding 20


21/25

The bishops leading the EPMC today have retained lessons learned from its founders. In

creating its missionary program (which is overseen by the MMM), it was careful to avoid teaming

up with other Christian organizations that are less staunchly nonconforming. While the LMC chose

not to encourage higher education, the EPMC definitely discourages school or college education

beyond 10th grade. Television and video of any kind (except for those absolutely necessary) is a test

of membership. Rather than falling prey to subtle influences as did LMC in the 50s and 60s,

EPMC remains vigilant for its conservative Mennonite values. Messages that encourage members

to nonconformity, separation and disciplined living are regularly heard from ministers and from

bishops speaking on rotation through their districts.

Yet the world is not content to leave these quiet conservative Mennonites alone. Challenges

brought to bear by urbanization, mingling with less conservative Christianity, the automobile, the

television and the radio had devastating effects on the LMC. EPMC faces even greater challenges

as the world becomes smaller through the development of technology, and the political and cultural

leanings of society. The cell phone, text messaging, the computer, email and the internet could

have catastrophic effects on the culture of the conservative Mennonites. Leaders of EPMC often

communicate to their flock that remaining unstained by the world is a matter of the heart regardless

of the times. If each member does not watch over the longings of his heart carefully, these new

threats could cause damage to the member, the family and the church.

Unfortunately for Eastern, their vision has not remained unchallenged. Over the first 23 years

of its existence, three small groups left the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church and formed

their own separate church organizations, primarily due to the zealously growing conservatism of the

EPMC (Christophel: divisions within the EPMC) .

Paulding 21


22/25

Since this division, the Lancaster Mennonite Conference has grown to include 16,204 members

and 170 congregations worldwide. The Lancaster Conference also has missions on all populous

continents, with hundreds of active missionaries. Following the schism with Eastern in 1968, the

LMCs discipline changed rapidly and was eventually exchanged with a Confession of Faitha

document very similar to those adopted by evangelical Christians today.

Paulding 22


23/25

Conclusion

In April of 1978, a Numidia Mennonite Bible School student expressed his appreciation for his

churchs standards writing, I see now that the standards are for my good. I know what is expected

of me. How much easier can it be made? What happier feeling is there than to walk in the known

right way and to know that the church wants to help me (Graber 9)? As this student implied, the

standards of his church do provide security here on earth, and there is much confidence that comes

as a result of knowing what is expected of oneself by God and ones peers. But, on the other hand,

how much authority should the Church and its leaders have over a believers personal life? Should

it have any? What about the freedom that the believer has in Christ? Is this freedom a result of

living within the periphery of our churchs rules, regulations and traditions? Or is it through the

believers obedience to the Spirit and Gods Word on a personal basis? Most Christians would

believe that there must be some combination of these elementsbut how much of each? There are

many theories and opinions on these matters, all too deep for exploration in this paper. Ultimately,

though,each person

must come to a conclusionone that will allow him to function to his fullest

potential in all areas of his Christian walk.

Paulding 23


24/25

Works Cited:

Christophel, Carl. Telephone interview re: EPMC statistics and schisms. April 2009.

Christophel, Carl. The Formation of the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church and Related

Areas: 1960-1970. History, Conservative Mennonite. Publisher: N/A. Compiled in

Dillsburg, PA, 1994.

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. April 15, 2009. Wikimedia

Foundation, Inc. April 15, 2009.

Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective. Mennonite Church USA Archives. April 15,

2009.

Graber, Robert. An Amiable Mennonite Schism: The Origin of the Eastern Pennsylvania

Mennonite Church. Pennsylvania Mennonite Heritage October 1984: 2-10.

Graybill, Jacob. Christian Youth Wants To Know. Lancaster Mennonite Conference, 1962.

Hess, Mahlon. Editorial. Missionary Messenger October 1967: 24, 23

Kraybill, Daniel. Telephone interview re: LMC and nonresistance. April 2009

Lehman, Daniel. Endeavor of Faith: A History of the Mennonite Messianic Mission Voluntary

Service Units 1967-1974. Ephrata, PA: Eastern Mennonite Publications, 1996.

Ruth, John Landis. The Earth Is the Lords: A Narrative History of the Lancaster Mennonite

Conference. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 2001.

Twelfth Mennonite General Conference. Garden City Confession of Faith. WikiSource.org.

October 25, 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. April 15, 2009.

Paulding 24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/1995/index.htmlhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Garden_City_Confession_of_Faithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/1995/index.htmlhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Garden_City_Confession_of_Faith


25/25

Submitted by:

Benjamin Paulding126 Harrisburg Street

York Springs, PA [email protected] Family HomeschoolJohn Horsch Mennonite History Essay ContestClass III

Paulding 25
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

the way they chose

Documents