A story from history - A dispute from Bunker Hill Congregational Church in 1881-82

From time to time I look back through whatever records I have access to observe, and learn about the historic setting I am in. When I served in digital missions from 2013-2018 that meant a lot of reading about technology, communication, and various culture's use of technology. As I serve now in a church with a rich history in its community this means reading old reports, family trees, and listen to the stories of those who remember previous generations. Today I'm sharing a snapshot of a story from the late 1800s regarding the affairs of the church which were worthy of note. There seems to have been something between a Deacon (W. W. Hays) and the pastor at the time (Rev. Stiver served from 1879-1881).

Photo captioned "The first Congregational Church (1842-1847) on land given by Moses True and nearly the same location as the present church." (Page 155)

The following is an account which begins on page 35 of the book "150 years 1842-1992 First Congregational Church of Bunker Hill, Illinois 150th Anniversary". 

"1881

At the annual meeting Jan. 8 it was reported that Sally Barnett had died during the previous year. On April 3 Minetta Henry was received into membership on profession of faith and was baptized. On April 10 a committee of E. W. Hayes, S. N. Sanford, D. E. Pettingill, R. Ridgly, G. Parmeter, C. V. A. Quick and John Knapp be appointed to inquire: "1st. the source, extend and cause of the alleged dissatisfaction with the public preaching of our pastor. 2nd. Who are absenting themselves from the public services without sufficient cause and, 3rd. Who are violating their covenant obligations in not contributing to the support of the Society and church according to their ability", and "resolved that the committee report as soon as they in their judgement find anything worth the consideration of the church."

Dea. Quick, Dea. Sawyer and D. E. Pettingill were chosen delegates to S. Ills. Assn. April 19 at Bunker Hill. J. Chappel, S. N. Sanford and E. W. Hayes were named alternates. E. W. Hayes was named to represent this church at a meeting in Alton concerning obtaining a new pastor for that church. On May 7 R. Ridgly was elected delegate and S. N. Sanford, alternate, to the state convention at Champaign May 24. On May 22 "E. W. Hayes from the committee appointed April 10 to investigate the cause of the divisions and dissensions in the church made the following report, which was received and ordered to be spread upon the records of the church." The report note: "That we think it advisable for both pastor and people to take the advice of the brethren who lately visited us as a committee appointed by the Association. That is to say that the pastor strive to conform more nearly to the usual manner of presenting and preaching Gospel truths and that the people be careful to discharge their duties as Christians and members of this church. That they attend on all the public exercises of the church, that they give of their substance according to their ability, and that in all things they exhibit that patience and charity which should characterize the followers of Christ. Hoping and praying that this may remove all causes of difference and further, that at this time we think it advisable to make no further report."

On Sept. 4 Rev. S. L. Stiver "read a communication containing his resignation of the pastoral office together with the causes which be there-to as follows. . ." the pastor's letter filled four full pages of the record book. He reported that for many months he had been "greatly grieved and discouraged in his work, by the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of a few of his people who have persistently called his reputation as a sound Christian teacher into question and had refused to honor the vows and obligations and to discharge their public duties". The pastor related that from his early youth he had looked forward to the Christian ministry. "With many discouragements he has persisted in this purpose until he completed all his courses of study with honor and commendation. Since then, and after a careful examination he was licensed to preach by the Presbytery of New York City. More recently he was again examined and was ordained and installed as pastor of this church by a competent council. Subsequent to that time in matters of faith his belief has not changed in the least while his studies in matters of evidence and opinion have almost always resulted in the affirmation of the views of leading Congregational and Presbyterian scholars and teachers. . . But not withstanding these facts, a few of the people of this church, headed by three of the officers, confused, without theological learning, with scarcely a passing knowledge of the Scriptures and with no other qualifications particularly befitting, have in the face of explanations, appeals, entreating prayers, have persisted in misrepresenting the pastor and in assuming thereupon that he was in serious error, have declared they would not abide the decisions of a council in case it was against them, have not availed themselves of an offer to submit these matters to the judgement of competent and impartial brethren in St. Louis and recently have absented themselves from the services of the church. . . Again, since the last meeting of the Association, the same persons have found some fault with the published manual of this church. . ." in conclusion he thanked those who had stood by him during this time of trial, saying "A wise and gracious Heavenly Father will surely reward you and the benedictions of an appreciative pastor will always descend upon you."

There followed another letter from Rev. Stives dated Sept. 4, saying "Having evidence of his guilt and having failed in the first steps of the Gospel discipline to bring him to a better mind I am compelled in great sorrow of heart and with earnest prayer that the Great Head of the church may bless this labor to the restoration of our erring brother to make the following complain against him: I charge brother W. W. Hays with misrepresenting the Christian faith and practice of this church" with "falsely accusing the pastor of this church both to the injury of the good name of the church and to the hindrance and discouragement of the pastor in his work: 1st. By stating that the church, and its pastor do not in their public worship honor the Lord Jesus Christ and, 2nd. By absenting himself from the service. . . Of misrepresenting the lawful actions of this church. . . By stating substantially that the constitution and by-laws of the church were altered without due previous consideration. . . I respectfully ask you for the good of the interest of this church to entertain these charges and to proceed, as soon as possible, to try the same according to the rules of the church and the law of Christ." He called upon Bros. F. Parmeter, D. H. Sawyer and R. Ridgly as witnesses. 

At a meeting Sept. 11 it was voted to act upon the pastor's resignation. The minutes note it was "Moved by Mr. Knapp that the resignation be accepted. P. C. Huggins moved to amend by adding 'subject to the decision of an ecclesiastical council.' The amendment was accepted and the motion adopted."

The following week a committee was formed to dissolve connection with Rev. Stiver and to act on the charges against Mr. Hayes and to fix the time for his trial. On Oct. 2 P. C. Huggins, John Knapp and E. W. Hayes were elected delegates and S. N. Sanford, John Chappel, R. Ridgly, alternates, to the Association meeting in Highland Oct. 11. A letter was composed to send to churches asking their pastors and a delegate attend an ecclesiastical council of sister churches to be held at the Bunker Hill Congregational Church on Tuesday, Oct. 25, noting the resignation of Rev. Stiver had been accepted by the church subject to the advise of an ecclesiastical council and "to consider such matters relating to church and pastor as may be brought before it and to advise with us and to take such action as the highest interests of the church may demand". 

The minutes of Nov. 1 note: "The council called to meet on Oct. 25th assembled in the Congregational Church at 10 o'clock A.M. this day having been postponed from the former dates to suit the convenience of several of the parties invited. The council was composed of representatives from the following named churches: Alton, Rev. E. G. Chaddock, pastor; Greenville, M. A. Crawford, pastor, L. S. Hubbard, delegate; Highland, L. F. Vullier, pastor; 3rd Congregational Church, St. Louis, Theo Colifron, pastor. Organized by choice of E. G. Chaddock, moderator and M. A. Crawford, Scribe."

The following report of the deliberations of the council was made by the Scribe ". . . The council voted unanimously to the following result: that in view of the circumstances, the council approve the action of the pastor in tendering his resignation and the church in accepting the same and recommend a dissolution of the pastoral relation. The council further expresses the hope that the church be thoroughly united and consecrated in the Lord's services and that the retiring pastor be led by the Divine Spirit in all his further labors" Rev. S. L. Stiver preached his farewell sermon on Nov. 6. 

At this point things in the story become a bit strange. In the meeting notes for 1882 we are told (on page 38) that a series of various pastor's "occupied the pulpit", a phrase no doubt to mean preached/taught during a particular period of Sundays. You will see why I say things get strange when you observe the following list. In 1882 the following names are listed as having "occupied the pulpit". 

Jan 1 - Rev. R. D. Miller

Jan 8 & 15 - Rev. J. L. Granger

Feb 19 - Rev. R. C. Stone

Feb 26 - Rev. J. V. Hoper

March 5 - Rev. S. L. Stiver (WHAT?!?!?! The same Pastor that had just resigned and preached his farewell sermon Nov. 6th the previous year?!?!)

April 2 - Rev. J. L. Granger (began to occupy the pulpit as having accepted the position based on a letter read after services on Feb 19). We're told "[H]e accepted the position with two conditions, that the term be unlimited time and to be terminated by three months notice given by either party, noting that had been his practice in the past and he found it "provides all the advantages of a settled pastor with few of the disadvantages". Those two conditions still stand today with updated wording in First Congregational Church's constitution which reads:

"The Pastor shall be called for an indefinite period, with the understanding that either he/she or the church may terminate the pastorate by giving the other party ninety (90) days notice or by an agreement mutually satisfactory to both parties." (You can read FCCBH's constitution by clicking here)

There is still a bit more to this story. in 1882 the charges brought by Rev. S. L. Stiver against W. W. Hays were brought to a head with a report (most likely on March 5th depending on how you interpret the notes. This would make some sense of why Rev. Stiver would preach that same day he was in town for the meeting). We are told that the result of the meeting was "Our brother W. W. hays has explained to the satisfaction of the Rev. S. L. Stiver and of your committee....On the above statements being made Brother Stiver consents to the withdrawal of the charges and we recommend that said be dismissed" (Page 38). It is of note that the report which went into the record was signed by S. L. Stiver, W. W. Hays, and E. W. Hayes. 

This is not the last time that S. L. Stiver and W. W. Hays would interact as they later would be chosen as delegates to serve at the Springfield Association on April 26th and 27th of 1887. 

A photo of the Sanctuary of the choir of First Congregational Church from 1936 Christmas Cantata. This building stood from 1847 until 1948 when a tornado devastated the town of Bunker Hill and demolished the Church's building. 

I have many thoughts which come to mind in reading through this section of our church's history here in Bunker Hill. I'll share a few thoughts briefly below:

1. Could you imagine a world in which church leaders were tasked with reviewing the following: the pastor's preaching, the congregation's attendance to church functions, and the individual giving of members? What would your reaction be if your local deacon or elder called upon you, visited you, texted you, Facebook messaged you, or stopped you after a Sunday to enquire as to the Biblical soundness of the preaching of the pastor, number of official church functions you had attended over the last 12 months, and the financial giving you were making to the community? Wow....I can imagine how some would react. I have a good idea how I would react, then again, I often am questioned regarding my preaching, involvement, and giving so I guess I'm used to it. I know many are not. 

2. It is hard not to notice how involved other churches and church servants are involved in the decisions as they were handled. The pastor's resignation was only accepted upon the basis of the support of an "ecclesiastical council". A council met and seemingly moderated what they thought would be best for all parties involved. The church itself didn't allow charges to be swept under the rug but handled the accusations against both a pastor and a deacon with some serious due process. I'm thankful for the times in my ministry when I've been both in a position to give moderation, and a position to receive moderation over disputes which have arisen. 

3. The temptation to "reinvent the wheel" is far too common today. We sometimes believe the lie that we need to "figure it out" in relation to a situation. Yet so often things have already been 'figured out" through example both in scripture and in church history. When disputes, difficulties, and differences arise, we don't need to "blaze a new path" or "lay a new trail". I've preached it often in my brief time at this church, the church is (almost) never without some level of contention. Yet, what matters is how we go about those contentions. While we cannot observe the hearts of those involved in the dispute from 1881-1882, we can see some of the by-products. Both individuals involved in the dispute submitted themselves to investigation and moderation by other authorities. Both individuals involved were then able to serve in the same ecclesiastical setting in the future (as the records from 1887 show). While Rev. Stiver and Deacon Hays may not have been the best of friends, they did see a resolution to this particular conflict that allowed them both to continue to serve the Lord in various capacities moving forward. 

A photo of the church Sanctuary exterior over Memorial weekend 2022