Church Records

Many of the churches of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries kept careful record books. These books described the spiritual development of the congregations more than the physical-particularly spelling out the dealings of elders with wayward members.

For instance, on July 9, 1866, the Record Book of the church in Canton, Missouri reported: "The case of Bro. D.B. Dixon for swearing and using profane language was taken up. Brother D. being present said he was in a passion & may have used such language as was charged, but did not recollect it & was sorry for it and asked the forgiveness and prayers of the Brethren." Another entry on the same date read: "Brother A.J. Miller was charged with dancing & drunkenness. Not being present, it was agreed that the Elders should see him & talk with him."

On September 9, 1883, the keeper of the record wrote: "After preaching this morning Bro. Smith stated that the officers of the church had overhauled the church record and had in their judgment found a number of members whose names appeared on the church record that they thought best to withdraw from, and would now present them to the congregation for action. Harry Gallas breaking the Sabbath by hunting & fishing. Wm. Taylor for drinking and breaking the Sabbath. Edward McVeygh, drunkenness. Samuel Stilley for keeping bar. P. White, drunkenness. Wadsworth, hunting & fishing on the Lord's Day. John Lemmon & wife, joined the Methodist church. Frank Carter for drinking and using profane language."

I do not always agree with the methods used by these elders of old, but there is much about their attitude that deserves praise. These entries speak not of bigotry, but of compassion; not of intolerance, but duty. These were Christians with convictions, who believed that God's children lived according to a new standard of purity. Such churches probably did more to bring order to nineteenth century American society than the anemic criminal justice system of the day.

But the leaders of these churches were not just disciplinarians-they were shepherds. They knew that Christians needed support-and that included exhortation and reproof as well as approval. They were trying to help the flock, not to punish it. Contrary to modern times, when most people are members of many different voluntary associations, in those times one prized his or her relationship to a local church. But church membership was important primarily because the association was not casual and without consequences.

Nonetheless, the idea of nurturing and disciplining a local congregation greatly offends modern Americans. It smacks of narrowness and bigotry and it challenges that darling of modern times, individual rights.

The alternative, of course, is neglect and disinterest. It seems unconscionable to me that there are congregations where elders are unsure about the names of the members, where no one seems to care about the physical or spiritual health of his or her fellow family members. The care that these churches exercised was not a matter of infringement but of spiritual concern. They were not going to stand idly by while a brother lost his soul. No one was in danger of getting lost in these sturdy and conscientious churches. The record books always contained careful lists of the members. If you read long enough, you will find out what happened to most of the people. Years ago, I copied two of the notations that had been scribbled after the names of members of the Old Union Church in Fayette County, Kentucky. One note said: "Deserted church and wife." Another read: "Died most triumphantly."

What gripping tales are told by such sparse and ingenious entries. They make you think a bit about your own epitaph. But they also speak of spiritual families-upright and scrupulous but also caring and forgiving.

Via Christianity Magazine