For the past several years at Winebrenner Theological Seminary research into the life of John Winebrenner and the early history of the Churches of God has added significantly to the historical dimension of the Churches of God in North America as we know it today.

      The early Gospel Publishers and Church Advocates reveal a John Winebrenner and Church of God thoroughly involved in the issues of that day. Matters pertaining to slavery, temperance, war and peace--in addition to the Church of God as a reforming church--are deeply a part of the Publisher and Advocate between 1835 and 1865.

      The following article outlines some of the problems faced by John Winebrenner and the Church of God in the matter of slavery and the Civil War. The article is written by Pastor Don Corbin to fulfill the requirements for an Advanced Research course in church history at Winebrenner Seminary.

      Pastor Corbin graduated from Winebrenner Seminary in June of 1970 with an M. Div. degree. A native of Wharton, Ohio, Don received his A. B. degree in Christian Education from Asbury College. While at Winebrenner, he pastored the Emmanuel United Church of Christ near Upper Sandusky, Ohio.

--RICHARD KERN.      

      JOHN WINEBRENNER in his early days was an abolitionist but this ended in August of 1838. After that, he no longer advocated "immediate" emancipation. He did remain opposed to slavery, just as he remained opposed to all sin. At this point he was then faced with the problem of satisfactorily relating the fact of existence of slavery to the fact of existence of the Christian Church, and in particular, the Church of God.

      Many in the early Church of God felt that slavery was not their concern, but was a political issue. On the other hand, for Winebrenner slavery was no more a secular matter, beyond the reach of the church, than was any other form of sin. The early and mid-1840's saw a gradual acceptance by the Church of God of antislavery principles.

      By 1845 the Church of God was officially an antislavery church. This is seen in the minutes of the First General Eldership held in Pittsburgh, May 26-30, 1845:

      Whereas, it is the duty of the ministers of God to testify against sin in every form and place, Therefore:

      1. Resolved that it is the unequivocal and decided opinion of this General Eldership of the Church of God, that the system of involuntary slavery, as it exists in the United States of North America, is a flagrant violation of the natural, unalienable and most precious rights of man, and utterly inconsistent with the spirit, laws and profession of the Christian religion.

      2. Resolved, that we feel ourselves authorized by the highest authority, and called upon by the strongest ties and obligations, to caution our brethren in the Church of God, against supporting and countenancing, either directly or indirectly, the said iniquitous institution of involuntary slavery; and should any of our ministers or members ever become guilty of this great and crying sin, we do most earnestly and religiously recommend and advise, that all such be excommunicated, or cast out of the church, and denied the right of Christian fellowship among us.¹

      Winebrenner introduced these himself, but later found that he had to redefine what he meant. Winebrenner's parents and relatives owned slaves in Maryland. Undoubtedly he had slaveholding friends and fellowshipped with them in the early Maryland Churches of God. Later, with the action of the First General Eldership upon his mind, and at the same time thinking of his own experiences with slaveholders, he realized that he either had to redefine his stand on slaveholding or lose some of these friends and the experiences he had had with them.

      On October 31, 1850, G. U. Harn, a Church of [6] God pastor in Eastern Pennsylvania (but originally from Maryland) wrote a letter to the Church of God periodical, The Church Advocate, outlining the "history" of slavery in the Churches of God. He wrote that:

      Five or more persons holding slaves had been members of the Churches of God, or fellowshipped and baptized as Christians--that repeatedly Camp-meetings had been held on extensive slave-holder's lands, and they fellowshipped as Christians--that ministers holding slaves had occupied the stands with our preachers--that twelve of fifteen Churches in Maryland and in the edge of Pennsylvania had been in regular communion with those persons--that not until very recently had two persons, the only ones that I ever knew to apply and not succeed on those grounds, been denied the rite of baptism--that one of those members had attended two sessions of the Eldership in East Pennsylvania . . . that more than thirty of the oldest and ablest of the ministers in Pennsylvania and Maryland had communed at the Lord's table and washed feet with these slave holding members, and knew them to be such.

      Harn was defending the proposition which was a matter of prolonged debate during the 1850 East Pennsylvania Eldership, viz., "That the bare relation of master to slave not debar from Christian fellowship in all cases." The report embodying these sentiments lost on the eldership floor by a 19 to 17 vote. In a losing cause Winebrenner voted with Harn, favoring the proposition. (Here we can see that Winebrenner has adjusted the position that he took at the first General Eldership.)

      When the Civil War broke out, the problem of slavery became even more a problem for the churches. The seventh triennial meeting of the General Eldership of the Church of God in North America passed as one of their resolutions: "We declare it to be our solemn conviction that the chief and operative cause of the present rebellion is American slavery." The Church took the stand that slavery was not scriptural. The seventh annual Eldership of the Churches of God in West Ohio passed:

. . . . . . . .

      2. Resolved, that all slaveholding and chatteling of humanity is manstealing, that it denies the first right of manhood, life, and liberty and the right to pursue happiness--degrades human beings to the level of brutes--turns human flesh, blood, bones, sinews, nerves and muscles into articles of merchandise--sets a price on souls, morals, religion and the image of God, and denies the very central idea on which Christianity is based, the common blood and brotherhood of man; and all who perpetrate said sin are classified by Paul, along with lawless, disobedient, ungodly, unholy and profane sinners, such as murderers of fathers and mothers, manslayers and whoremongers, liars and perjurers.

      3. Resolved, that the whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual [7] exercise of the most boisterous passions--the most unremitting despotism on the one part and degrading submission on the other.

      4. Resolved, that the Bible neither sanctions, tolerates, regulates, nor permits, directly or indirectly, but in letter and spirit is opposed to slaveholding in any member of the Kingdom of Christ.

      5. Resolved, Inasmuch as the Bible stands opposed to oppression, inhumanity and injustice, as is embodied in the Slave Traffic, therefore, we, taking the Bible for our criterion, cannot conscientiously and religiously unite in church or Christian fellowship with any man or woman who justifies or has fellowship, or persists in the sinful practice of buying, selling or holding any human being in bondage.²

      The thirty-fourth annual Eldership of East Pennsylvania similarly resolved:

      1. That American slavery can afford no justifiable plea for its existence, in the teachings of the Old and New Testament, nor in the God given rights bestowed upon men indiscriminately, nor in any social necessity.³

      A unique situation in the Church of God's view of slavery and the Civil War owed its origin to the existence of the Texas Eldership. Being in the South and having many slaves caused the Texans to look at the matter in a different way than their northern brethren. This attitude can be seen in the resolutions passed by the fourth annual meeting of the Church of God in Texas in 1860:

      Committee on Resolution reported as follows:

      WHEREAS, A part of the members of the Church of God in the North have become ultra upon the present political issues between the North and the South, and have declared the systems of servitude as laid down in the Bible as evil, and incompatible with the interest of the American people,

      AND WHEREAS, they have by so doing, violated our Book of discipline, the New Testament, which is our only rule of faith and practice, and recognized by the church, as sufficient, without any human legislation upon it whatever,

      AND WHEREAS, the course pursued by a few, in publishing antislavery resolutions, and other articles of similar character, in the Church Advocate, which have embarrassed and brought us into serious and great difficulties, owing to the fact that the mass of the people do not understand our system of church cooperation,

      AND WHEREAS, Their course has subjected us to an unnecessary persecution, and greatly militated against the work of reformation of the South,

      AND WHEREAS, they have, by so doing, seceded from the early practice of the church, and do not, (as they once did) stand upon our creed, (the Bible), but have virtually joined issue with that portion of the Bible, which exhorts servants to be obedient to their masters, which course of theirs is contrary to the letter, spirit, and design of the Gospel. And in as much as we are taught in the Bible, "to be subject to the powers that be, and obey them which rule over us," which most emphatically implies obedience to the laws of our land,

      AND WHEREAS, we in fact are pro-slavery men, and intend to be governed by the laws of the land, in which we live, as we ever have been. THEREFORE,

      RESOLVED, that the Eldership in Texas, stand upon the Bible and that she does not deviate from it, but cleave to, and defend it, as being sufficient for our faith and practice in every particular.

      RESOLVED, that we will, as we ever have been, and call upon all to be subject to, and assist in carrying out and enforce the laws of our country, and further,

      RESOLVED, that we claim no fellowship in Church with abolition members, North, East, West, or South, or wherever they may be found; and have neither voice or part, either directly or indirectly, in making, forming or even winking at abolition resolutions, and declare them unscriptural, unbrotherly, and unconstitutional, and destructive to the interest of Church and State.

      RESOLVED, that we tender our warmest thanks to all the brethren, who are with us on this question, for defending us against the attacks of abolitionists in the North; and have namefully defended the doctrine and early practice of the church.⁴

Thus there was a split in the Church over the issue of slavery and slaveholding. However, the Church (Church of God) in the North did not consider or admit that there was a division. The following article from the Church Advocate in 1861 is illustrative:

      Another split on the slavery question--The Church Advocate, the organ of the "Church of God," commonly called Winebrennerians, publishes the journal of the fourth annual meeting of the Church of God in Texas held, May 16, 1860. The meeting adopted, with regard to slavery, the resolution that "they have no scruples in relation to the correctness of the system," and that "involuntary servitude is plainly taught in the Bible." As the denomination is officially anti-slavery, having declared her belief that "the institution of involuntary slavery is impolitic or unchristian," it would seem that a [8] split of the denomination on the slavery question is unavoidable.

      We clip the above from the Methodist of Feb. 16, published at New York. While the article properly represents the action of the Texas annual meeting, the Methodist errs somewhat in its conclusions, that a split in the denomination on the slavery question is "unavoidable." No church in the U. S., probably, is more harmonious in sentiment on the slavery question than the "Church of God," notwithstanding there are a number of flourishing Churches in the connection in the Southern States. Some of these brethren who now belong to the Texas annual meeting were originally members of the body, and were sent out as missionaries by the E. Pa. Eldership, but having unofficially separated and organized an annual meeting of their own and having never yet been officially recognized by the Gen. Eldership, which body alone has the power to set off annual Elderships. This Texas meeting has therefore never formed an integral part of the denomination, and cannot therefore split off. But their ultra pro-slavery views may be a perpetual barrier to their union with the general body although on other accounts very desirable.⁵

      The Indiana Eldership, of all the elderships other than Texas, was probably the most lax on the stand it took concerning slavery. For at its nineteenth annual Eldership it resolved that "We are for the Union without an if, whether slavery stands or fails by the operation."⁶ On the other hand they took a definite stand as to how they felt towards the negro when they resolved, "That we believe a negro is no better than a white man, and if a white man can be drafted to fight his enemies, we see no reason why a black man is any better."⁷

      It seemed to be the general consensus of the Church of God that the cause of the Civil War was God's judgment upon the Church and nation for wickedness and sin (holding slaves), and that an end would not come to the war until and after personal and national repentance took place for this sin. The seventh triennial meeting of the General Eldership resolved:

      6. That the unparalleled sacrifice of life and treasure in the present civil war for the overthrow of the slaveholder's rebellion and for the restoration of the national authority in all states of this Union is obviously in our opinion the result of God's judgments upon us for our wickedness.

      7. That the terrible calamities which we are suffering in consequence of the present civil war raging with infuriated madness between brethren cannot be permanently averted unless there be unmistakable signs of true national repentance, since national judgments are only reformatory and advertable when they lead to this cardinal virtue.

      8. That national reformation cannot legitimately follow in our history until the people are brought to apprehend the primary cause of our present troubles.

      9. That we have a just cause to rejoice that our sentiments so often officially expressed concerning the character of American slavery as a great moral and political evil, by way of warning to the American people, are fully vindicated by the slaveholder's rebellion.⁸

This same reasoning is very plainly expressed in the editor of the Advocate's statement, "Why has all this trouble come upon us? We fear that the true answer to this question is, that because of our sinfulness as a nation, God has permitted this scourge to fall upon us. Our condition as such, should induce us to confess and implore Divine mercy and interposition in our behalf, and we hope such is the feeling of the friends of peace and religion everywhere."⁹

      It is easy to see that the Church felt that the Civil War was God's punishment upon them as a Church and nation for their grave sin of slaveholding. (Of course the Texas church was the exception to this.)

      Through this study and research I have had to ask myself the question, "Does God punish the Church and even nations for their sins, especially for oppressing people?" This was driven home by R. H. Bolton's statement in the Advocate: "Brethren of the Church of God--if any oppose the freedom of the oppressed, you err. May God grant to show you your error. So long as you oppose this you cannot prosper religiously. Many have made shipwreck in their opposition, be careful lest you do so also."¹⁰

      Maybe the Church needs to be more concerned and involved with racial justice and freedom in America today.

      One of the questions that plagued the Church over the Civil War and slavery issue was the relationship of church and state. How much does the Church get involved with political issues? This same question is probably one of the key issues that the Church of today is faced with as we look at our current problems: the war in Southeast Asia; the Middle East war; racial justice; freedom of speech; campus unrest; and many more. Should the Church be involved, or [9] shouldn't it? I conclude this research with part of an article from the Church Advocate which shows the relationship of Church and state during the Civil War. I feel it has much for us to think about today during our national unrest:

      After the thrilling and momentous events through which we have passed as a nation in the space of four short years, the most important of the century, it should be a matter of deep concern to the lovers of Zion now to comprehend fully the real relation in which the church stands to the state, passing as we have through the most violent, political and civil tornado that has ever afflicted any nation. That the church has been most powerfully affected for good or for evil during these most eventful years, there can be no reasonable doubt. So intimately connected have been the interests of the church with those of the nation, that the sorrows and joys, the defeats and victories, the humiliations, and the triumphs of the latter, have in large measure been those of the former; not that the church and state are identical, or that they should ever become so, either in a political or ecclesiastical sense, such a union or combination would become the greatest curse, producing the most destructive results to civil and religious liberty that could befall either the nation or the church. But notwithstanding this entire ecclesiastical and political divorcement of church and state in this great country, and their separate and distinct fields of operation, the war has demonstrated that there is a very close connection, and many identical interests between the church and state in this God favored republic. We know that some honest, well meaning religionists deny and oppose this view of the subject, and believe and teach there can be no union of interests between church and state, and that the church is such a separate and distinct association from the state, that to enjoy the privileges of the former we must abandon all interests and concern in the latter. But this view is neither reasonable nor Scriptural; nor can this idea be maintained for a moment, by argument or fact. The citizens of the nation are not all, it is true members of the church; but all the members of the church are citizens of the nation, enjoying its privileges and blessings, and of consequence are bound to share in its obligations and responsibilities, from neither of these blessings or obligations can they divorce themselves if they would. . . In this great conflict the nation and the church have manfully stood together, side by side, each receiving mutual sympathy, strength and courage from the other. Their sorrows and fears being mutual in the conflict, the triumphs are alike inspiring and joyous. And now it may be asked, what has been gained to the church by this most terrible bloody conflict? We answer, whatever, the nation has gained, the church has gained also; what the nation has lost, the church has lost. . .

      Let the church therefore awake to her interests and high responsibilities, let her notice that in this severe conflict that the hand of her Living Head and Deliverer has been stretched out not only to deliver her and the nation from eminent peril and danger but also to open up new avenues to usefulness in the accomplishment of her mission; of preaching peace to the broken-hearted, liberty to the captives, and the acceptable year of the Lord to small and great.¹¹

      All of the following references are from the bound volumes of The Church Advocate at Winebrenner Theological Seminary.

      ¹ Journal of the 7th Triennial Meeting of the General Eldership of the Church of God in North America, XXVIII 7 June 18, 1863, Pg. 54-56.
      ² Journal of the 7th Annual Eldership of the Church of God in West Ohio, XXVIII 27 November 5, 1863, Pg. 208
      ³ Journal of the 34th Annual Meeting of the East Pennsylvania Eldership of the Church of God, XXVIII 29 November 19, 1863, Pg. 222-227.
      ⁴ Journal of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Church of God in Texas, XXV 40 February 7, 1861.
      ⁵ XXV 43 February 28, 1861, Pg. 340.
      ⁶ Journal of the 19th Annual Eldership of the Church of God in Indiana, XXVIII 32 December 10, 1863, Pg. 249-50.
      ⁷ Ibid.
      ⁸ XXVIII 7 June 18, 1863, Pg. 54-56
      ⁹ "Our Trouble," XXV 36 January 10, 1861, Pg. 300
      ¹⁰ "Slavery--It's Fate," XXIX 40 February 2, 1865, Pg. 318.
      ¹¹ "Church and State," XXX 13 July 27, 1865, Pg. 104.

[The Church Advocate, September 1970, pp. 6-9, 45.]

      The electronic version of Don Corbin's "Slavery and the Civil War as Viewed by the Churches of God" has been transcribed from a copy of The Church Advocate, 135 (September 1970), pp. 6-9, 45. Thanks to Jean Leathers, Archivist of the Churches of God Historical Society, for providing a copy of this article.

      Pagination has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 6:      --R. K. [ -- RICHARD KERN.
 p. 7:      purgerers. [ perjurers.
 p. 8:      thirty-fourth anual [ thirty-fourth annual
            simlar character, [ similar character,
            seceeded [ seceded
 p. 9:      IT seemed [ It seemed
            unparalled [ unparalleled
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 23 September 1997.
Updated 13 July 2003.