About 100 years have passed since the following story took place. Maybe now it can be told! “Pastor John” had been at the country church for seven years and had earned the respect of the congregation. At age 65, he was a seasoned veteran and had experienced many challenges in several pastorates. But what happened at a Sunday morning service may have been a shock for the preacher.
Someone who knew “Pastor John” described him as “earnest, instructive and solid, with marked simplicity and godly sincerity.” He had a dignified bearing which must have made the episode that Sunday even more painful.
It had been a good pastorate. Like most of his generation, he served several congregations on a field of churches. But the people of this one particular church knew that no one had done so much to help their church. Under “Pastor John's” leadership, the first parsonage had been built, the Sunday school was enlarged, the WMU found a friend and the cause of Baptist work in the area prospered. A graduate of old Richmond College, the pastor recognized the value of education and guided many of the church's young people into colleges. The pastor's wife directed the church choir and greatly improved the musical life of the church.
The church was a good church, yet the people had not been challenged to help support the various denominational enterprises of the day. Pastor John encouraged that the church move forward. A committee deliberated and proposed a revised church constitution and rules of order.
When the day came for the business meeting, there were only about a dozen members voting out of a church with a membership of 375. One of the proposed additions was the following statement: “We hold that it is the duty of each member of the church to contribute of his means of support of religion as the Lord shall prosper him.” Another was to allow the pastor to appoint committees unless otherwise directed by the church. The committee's report was rejected.
The next month, in his Sunday morning sermon, Pastor John addressed his disappointment over the action at the business meeting. He felt that the action “virtually declared the church unwilling to say that its members should contribute to the cause of religion and prevented him from appealing to the members for contributions for benevolent objects.” He also felt spurned by rejecting the provision which would have allowed the pastor to appoint committees.
In the sermon, Pastor John clearly displayed his feelings. All of a sudden, three men of the same family verbally interrupted the sermon, “forcing him to close the service during his sermon.” The mild-mannered country gentlefolk were shocked by what happened. It was the talk around the pot-belly stove in the local general store.
At the next business meeting, the pastor again reviewed the ramifications of the rejection of the revised constitution. He also complained to the church about the action of the three men during the worship service.
The men defended their conduct, claiming that the pastor's sermon with its pointed remarks was “public criticism” and “undue abuse.” They said that their action was a way of “defending the church against abuse” and was never intended for “breaking up” a religious meeting. One of the men called for the pastor to apologize for bringing up the matter in his sermon. By vote, the motion for an apology failed, carrying only one single vote.
Pastor John explained that he meant nothing personal when he had referred to the men's actions as “a nuisance [which had] done more harm than good.” While he insisted that he meant no harm to anyone, he voluntarily apologized for anything which “might be construed as personal and anything that he might have said in a spirit not entirely Christian.”
The pastor asked the congregation as to whether the men should apologize for interrupting his sermon and forcing the close of the worship service. By congregational vote, the church called for an apology from its fellow members with only one person voting against an apology. The men refused to apologize for their actions on that Sunday and “left the house, requesting that their names be dropped from the roll.” Another member sided with them and did likewise. The matter of rejecting the revised constitution was rescinded.
At the next business meeting, a committee was appointed to collect funds for “the various Boards” of the General Association. The church was definite wanting to help the good Baptist causes of the day. The members also complied with the request of those men who wanted “their names erased from the roll.”
After several months, one of the men involved in the Sunday morning episode came before the church and publicly apologized. Once again, the pastor offered his own apology “for all that the church thought he had done wrong.” Another man pleaded that he had “acted hastily” and apologized. He was restored into the fellowship.
As for Pastor John, he remained as pastor until his death some seven years after the incident. Today the mortal remains of the pastor and those who opposed him all occupy the same sun-baked church cemetery. The church prospered and remained a chief supporter of Baptist causes. Now the story — a story of Baptist democracy and Christian forbearance — has been told. It is a good story with a happy ending.
Fred Anderson may be contacted at P.O. Box 34, University of Richmond, VA 23173.