What’s In a Name?
by Zandra Wagoner

Introduction

The community, now known as the Church of the Brethren, has a complex history of names. Early in its history, members found ways to thrive with a plurality of names which were sometimes self-chosen and sometimes given to them by outsiders. In the 19th century the brethren and sisters felt pressure to settle on a legal name, resulting in a series of namings and renamings. As early as 1836, a name was chosen for legal purposes, but was contested throughout the remainder of the century resulting in an official name in 1871, and later changed in 1908 to its current name, "Church of the Brethren." However, nearly 100 years later, the church is back in the same conundrum of what to call itself. Beginning in the 1970’s, various members began questioning whether or not the term, Brethren, adequately included women, and more recently, whether or not it’s archaic sound is inclusive of younger members. Other issues being raised are whether or not the word Brethren is useful for evangelism, church growth, and whether or not it can meaningfully communicate the spirit of the denomination to the broader world. Simultaneously, others are highlighting the inclusive, endearing quality of the word Brethren, and the historical and contemporary significance of the current denominational name.

I will begin with a discussion of the "bewildering variety of names since its beginnings." In particular, I want to explore how brethren has served as an enduring name, and explore its gendered and generic uses at the turn of the century. Then I will turn to a discussion of the actual debate leading up to the name decision in 1908. I will trace what was at stake and what was hoped for. The final section of the paper will connect the 1908 discourse with the more recent debates about the name in the late 20th century. Information for this paper is drawn from denominational letters, minutes from annual meetings, speeches and periodicals from the late 1800’s and throughout the 1900’s.


The Brethren: A History of Names

From its inception in 1708 in Germany, this small denomination has had a multitude of names associated with it. By design they gave themselves no distinctive name, calling one another Bruder (brother) and Schwester (sister) and often used Bruder (translated into old English as "brethren") to designate the fellowship of believers. They intentionally withheld the name of the first baptizer because they did not want to be called after that person’s name. The Brethren understood themselves to be scriptural Christians and followed Jesus’ words that "all ye are brethren" (Matthew 23:8). In Germany, they referred to themselves as Taufgesinnten (baptist-minded), Taufer/Neue Taufer ([ana]baptists) and Schwarzenau Taufer (Schwarzenau Baptists) after the place where the movement began. Outsiders also provided names. The names given were sometimes descriptive but often they were derisive, mocking the Brethren baptismal practice of full immersion in water and "dunking" three times in the name of the trinity. Stemming from the German and Dutch words, tunken and doopen, respectively, (meaning "to dip"), the Brethren were known with derisive names such as Tunkers, Tinkers, Dunkers, Dunkards, Dompelaars, Tumblers and Tumplers. The above list is a result of various modifications as they emigrated from Germany to America. These nicknames for "dippers" were first given to anabaptists, or rebaptizers, as early as 1528 in Switzerland. A common punishment was to dunk "rebaptizers" until drowned. For many Brethren, this nickname was offensive given its oppressive history.

In colonial Pennsylvania where the Brethren first settled, they were known as German Baptists, First-Day Baptists, Seventh-Day Baptists and by their many nicknames. It is important to note that some accepted the nickname, Dunker, and persistently called themselves by this name. Church documents of early churches confirm that members referred to themselves as brethren and/or variations of baptists. But among themselves they addressed one another informally as brethren (or brethren and sisters). Because the German language capitalizes all nouns, it is difficult to know if they used Bruder as a proper name or not. While brethren was one among many, it was a common way to refer to the community. It is believed that early publications printed by Christopher Sauer, Sr., used the phrase, Die Gemeinde der Bruder, or "the church of the brethren." The first recorded Annual Meeting minutes also confirm that the community referred to themselves as "the brethren" (1778), "the assembled brethren" (1781) beloved members, brethren and sisters" (1785) and "the council meeting of the brethren" (1789).

By the 1800’s, the Brethren felt legal pressures to formally choose a denominational name for property deeds and legal documents. The 19th century saw a series of naming and renaming. In 1836 the Annual Meeting proposed that all legal documents use "Fraternity of German Baptists." But even after a name for legal purposes was chosen, official bodies continued to refer to themselves as brethren, such as in 1876 when the official minutes were issued under the title of "Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Brethren." In 1894, members of the Germantown church, presented a new gravestone for Alexander Mack, which read, "The first minister and organizer of the church of "The Brethren." In 1871 the denomination renamed itself German Baptist Brethren Church for legal documents. Within a few years, denominational splinter groups modified the name: The conservative group renamed themselves "Old German Baptist (Brethren)" and the progressives became the "Brethren Church." The larger body continued with German Baptist Brethren, but there was growing dissatisfaction with the name for reasons that will be discussed at length later. There was a proliferation of names and confusion as to which name(s) designated this particular group of believers because there were other denominations that called themselves baptist and/or brethren. Simultaneously, many churches were not using the official name, but a variety of names, including the historically derisive terms Dunker and Dunkard. Likewise, official denominational publications were continuing to use titles like the Brethren Publishing house, Brethren Hymnal and the Brethren Almanac. Further confounding the confusion was the fact that outsiders knew this community as Dunkers, not German Baptists, nor Brethren. A 1901 publication entitled, Holsinger’s History of the Tunkers and The Brethren Church, is followed by a subtitle which is a poignant representation of the proliferation of names at the turn of the century:

The Church of the Brethren, The Tunkers, The Seventh-Day German Baptist Church, The German Baptist Church, The Old German Baptists and The Brethren Church.

The subtitle reflects the three-way split of the late 19th century and the variety of names used by members. Eager to designate and define their own identity and be known by their own name, the late 1800’s were a time to reflect on identity and the church’s role in the world. After much debate, in 1908, two hundred years after its birth, a decision was made to call themselves "Church of the Brethren" - a name that has continued for almost 100 years.


Brethren: Gendered or Generic (inclusive or exclusive)?

Throughout Brethren history, the use of the word, Brethren, has functioned as both gendered and generic. Members commonly used the term brethren for two purposes. It served as a generic term for the faith community, and it referred to the male members of the church. As a designation for the community, the Brethren attempted to use the term generically, but there were constant irruptions of gender that could not be contained. Of particular interest are those irruptions that occurred in and around the 1908 name change. Some examples of this at the turn of the century illuminate how the Brethren were struggling between its generic and gendered uses.

A hymn entitled "Holy Manna" written in 1825 by George Atkins (non-Brethren) appeared in the 1901 Brethren Hymnal. The first two stanzas begin with the following:

Line 1: "Brethren, we have met to worship…"
Line 2: "Brethren, see poor sinners round you…"

While the first two lines could be interpreted as a call to the faith community, the third verse, which begins, "Sisters, will you join and help us," clarifies that the first two verses were actually addressed to the men. However, the chorus, after each verse, invites the "Brethren" to "pray, and holy manna/ Will be showered all around, " which seems to include everyone. The hymn is a confusing combination of generic and gendered meanings. While the hymn had slow acceptance into the Brethren denomination because of theological concerns, the song’s use of Brethren as both generic and gendered was congruent with current practices.

This inconsistency was seemingly carried over into other names associated with the Brethren. In 1901, Geo W. Strouder published a poem called, "The Little Tunkeress," written about "Brown-eyed Ruth, the Tunker’s daughter." While Tunker, like Brethren, was a generic name to describe a community, the poem discloses that Tunker refers more to the men, and needs modification when designating women.

There are numerous examples of the generic/gendered mixture at the turn of the century. The primary denominational publication, Gospel Messenger, featured an article previewing the 1902 Annual Meeting that stated: "The Brethren, with their womenfolk, will begin to arrive by May 10. " In an article reporting on the 1908 Annual Meeting of the Brethren, the journalist recounted that "a number of brethren and sisters were already on the grounds, possibly two hundred." At times Brethren implied women while at other times, it was important to designate women as apart from the Brethren.

This gendered/generic mixture was particularly present in the name debate leading up to the 1908 conference. D.C. Moomaw, writing to the Gospel Messenger, suggested its members call themselves "American Baptist Brethren," implying its generic character, yet a few sentences later calls for "brethren and sisters" to send in their votes. In another instance, a writer suggests that the name include Christian in its title because it implies male, female, brothers and sisters. But in the same article he affirms that "we are ‘Brethren’" and points out the absurdity of calling the church "Children of Christ" or "Sisters of Christ." These few examples show the gendered content of "brethren" even though members used it generically. I came across only one voice that explicitly named the problem associated with calling everyone Brethren. In an article published just months before the 1908 decision, A.C. Wieand, first president of the denominational seminary, argued that members should not call themselves Brethren. Among his many reasons, he says:

"Furthermore, "Brethren" is masculine, and a body of sisters cannot say, - if a group of other ladies should say to them, "We are Presbyterians, what are you?" – "We are Brethren," because the humor of the situation would be too much."

This is the only deliberate distinction of the gendered nature of "Brethren" to be found in Brethren publications until 1973. Ironically, Wiend contradicts himself later in the article and suggests that the church use its "endearing name" – i.e. "Brethren" – and name itself "The Brethren Dunker Church." At the 1908 Annual Meeting he "withdraws" his published statement "for the sake of unanimity of sentiment" and throws his vote in for "Church of the Brethren." As quick as it came into consciousness it seemed to fade into the background. Nevertheless, the generic use of Brethren was being subtly contested through irruptions and inconsistencies.

Interestingly, a similar conversation was taking place in other denominations. The popular Methodist humorist, Marietta Holley, most explicitly shows the contested nature of "men" and "brethren" at the turn of the century. Her books are of particular interest because they are set within a church context. Through humor, Holley promoted women’s rights and wrote numerous narrative sketches to advocate women’s suffrage, temperance and other reform movements of the late 19th century, She writes under the pseudonym of "Josiah Allen’s Wife" who is also her main character, Samantha. In 1890 she wrote Samantha Among the Brethren by Josiah Allen’s Wife to express her disagreement with the Methodist Episcopal Church position on the role of women. She pokes fun at the church for using man, laymen and brethren as inclusive of "wimmin" when it has to do with punishment and condemnation, obedience, missionary work, or raising money. But when referencing those areas of "free and equal" or leading church meetings, these words meant men, not "wimmin." The following are excerpts from a conversation between Samantha (Josiah Allen’s Wife) and Josiah:

"Oh yes," sez Josiah in a resonin’ tone, "the word laymen always means wimmin when it is used in a punishin’ and condemnatory sense, or in the case of work and so forth, but when it comes to settin’ up in high places, or drawin’ sallerys, or anything else difficult, it always means men…"

"This is so," sez Josiah. "It takes a man’s mind to grapple with it; wimmin’s minds are too weak to tackle it. It is jest es with that word "men" in the Declaration of Independence. Now that word ‘men, in that Declaration, means men some of the time, and some of the time men and wimmin both. It means both sexes when it relates to punishment, taxin’ property, obeyin’ the laws strickly, etc, etc. and then it goes right on the very next minute and means men only, as to wit, namely, votin’, takin’ charge of public matters, makin’ laws, etc…to sum the matter up, the words ‘brethren,’ ‘laymen,’ etc., always mean wimmin so fur as this: punishment for all offenses, strict obedience to the rules of the church, work of any kind and all kinds, raisin’ money, givin’ money all that is possible, teachin’ in the Sabbath school, getting’ up missionary and charitable societies, carryin’ on the same with no help from the male sect leavin’ that sect free to look after their half of the meanin’ of the word – sallerys, office, makin’ the laws that bind both of the sexes, rulin’ things generally, translatin’ Bibles to suit their own ideas, preachin at ‘em, etc, etc. So you see, Samantha?" sez he, proudly and loftily.

"Yes," sez I, es I filled up my teapot, for the water had at last biled. "Yes, I see."

And I spoze he thought he had convinced me…

Marietta Holley’s writings were a well-known aspect of popular culture between 1870-1920. Her sketches were published in Peterson’s, Ladies Home journal, Leslie’s Weekly and The Christian Herald. Her books were sold widely by traveling book agents who carried them into remote rural areas, as well as urban areas. While the "Brethren" were generally rural people who did not regularly interact with popular culture, it is likely that some if not many were familiar with Holley’s books given its availability and religious content. By 1908, concerns about the gendered and generic use of "brethren" were "in the air" even though it was not explicitly debated among the community of Brethren. More significant is to recognize that, in practice, this community of people used the word, Brethren, in both its generic and gendered manifestations.


Choosing a Name

Following the decision to name the denomination German Baptist Brethren in 1871, members continued to use whatever names they had grown accustomed to, and outsiders continued to refer to the Brethren as Dunkers/Dunkards. As early as 1883, members were questioning the appropriateness of their German Baptist name. Congregations began sending papers for and against a name change to Annual Meetings in 1888. A committee was first appointed in 1902 to research the legalities of changing a corporate name, but the delegate body was not yet ready to make a change. In 1905 the Gospel Messenger added a regular column for members to share their opinions about a name change. Although there was resistance, it seemed inevitable that there would be a change. The following year, in1906, a committee was appointed to research the issue and bring suggestions in 1908, and was finally settled that year. The debate focused on issues that stirred great emotion in members. Concerns included 1) the inappropriateness of the word, German; 2) the denomination’s increasing desire to be focused outwardly toward the world; 3) the denomination’s identity as portrayed through a name; 4) the long-time challenge of outsiders using the questionable nickname, Dunkard/Dunker; and 5) the deep connection with the word, Brethren. After a discussion of these concerns as expressed at Annual Meetings and in the Gospel Messenger, there will be a consideration of the subtext of gender.

By the late 19th century fewer Brethren were speaking German and membership had expanded to people who were not of German ancestry. For those interested in mission work and spreading "good news," the name, German Baptist Brethren was felt to be a hindrance. In the United States, when the Brethren held public worship services in new locations, people would assume that they would be spoken in German. In addition it was problematic for overseas missions. As one writer expressed, "the word ‘German’ is not only misleading, but in countries where there is a feeling against the Germans, as a people, it has interfered with mission work." Because Germany had been in recent conflicts with other European countries, many Brethren (though not all) were embarrassed by the fact that their very name attached them to "the aggressive German, whose iron hand has been felt in most countries in Europe." "Go into France for instance, with the name German Baptist, and the door is closed against you as a missionary church."

There were similar concerns raised as the church made plans to open missionary work in China. The issue was one of inclusion. While proud of their German heritage, many were growing uncomfortable because the word was misleading and inappropriate. The Gospel Messenger, whose editors were actively involved in the name discussion, printed the following editorial, suggesting that the German name be dropped:

"We should not wish to cripple the power and influence of the Church of Jesus Christ by coupling to it a name that must, by the very nature of it, be prejudicial to those not recognized in it."

Closely related to the above concern, was the general movement to become more outwardly focused. The Brethren had traditionally kept to themselves. But more members were entering the cities, traveling in the United States and around the world, eager to share the church’s gospel. Members wanted a name that would be presentable to people who had not heard of them, and they sought a name that could be meaningful in the world context. They perceived themselves "ceasing to be a local people." As the Gospel Messenger stated in 1904, hoping to encourage members to take the name issue seriously: "We are growing decidedly in the direction of religious expansion. We are reaching out all over the United States, and hope soon to have missionaries in every land." Many wanted a name that would adapt itself to "all nationalities and languages," one that could "go into any nation on the face of the earth and not be a hindrance."

Although there was general agreement that the denominational name should be presentable to the world beyond themselves, conflict arose as to how this was to be accomplished. For many, changing the name again, when the church already had a history of too many names, was to threaten the church's identity and good reputation. Early in the discussion (1891), Lewis Teeter argued that changing the name "would impress the public mind with the thought of instability, which is always regarded as a mark of weakness by the best of minds." Nearly 15 years later, W. J. Swigart spoke out against a name change because it would take on "the appearance of fickleness, and restlessness, and unsettledness that is worse to the outside world than the present contradictory name that is such an objection." In addition to not wanting to risk the church’s "good name" there was also uneasiness that changing names would further confuse outsiders. Or as J.M. Blough expressed in 1905, "there is danger of loosing our identity."

The Brethren had already had a history of outsiders not knowing who they were. Whether they were German Baptist or Brethren, they usually had to identify themselves as Dunkers.

"If I say, "[I belong to] the Brethren," they seem at a loss, but if I say, "to the Dunkers," they will say, "Oh, yes, I know them; they are good people."

Brethren were weary of explaining themselves because it was reminder of their status as a largely unknown people. They also had the added complication of being confused with other groups who called themselves "Brethren" or "Baptist." A solution for some was to simply drop the name issue and refocus on "what we are, rather than by what we are called." There was a move to focus on the character and quality of the denomination as a way to make a "name" for themselves. These Brethren wanted to protect the denomination’s reputation of works and goodness by sticking with the current name, even if inadequate. Protecting the church’s identity was a matter of concern for the entire community. The Brethren felt their identity was in a precarious position, and the name issue brought this to the foreground. There were constant reminders from members that the church must maintain its character and dignity, and expected their name to express this to the world.

In the final three years of the debate, it seemed clear that one of the favored names was "Dunker/Dunkard." While everyone knew this name had a questionable history, many had grown to accept it and knew themselves to be Dunkers. Advocates of this name felt that if the church adopted this name, there would be less misunderstandings and confusion with others, and there would be no need of constant explaining. As one person stated, "1) We will continue to call ourselves Brethren; 2) Others will continue to call us Dunker." Some took the, "if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em" strategy. Simultaneously, there was a sentiment of disgust with regards to that word. Many felt it was "offensive," "contemptible," and "derisive." Opponents were quick to remind members that the root word was given out of malice, and the ending, "ard" was a "most contemptible French ending…found in all such words as bastard and drunkard." During the final debate in 1908 when the decision was down to Brethren Dunker or Church of the Brethren, an opponent of Dunker reminded delegates of the following story:

You remember the story of a few years ago, where a number of our brethren were traveling, and a telegram was sent ahead that some "Dunkards" were to be taken care of. The operator misunderstood the message and understood it to be "drunkards." The policemen were called out, so that when this trainload of drunkards would come in, they might take care of them. I am opposed to this name.

This same delegate recounted school children who passed by a Brethren church calling it "the old Drunkard Church." However, whether one was opposed or in favor of "Dunker," the discussion pivoted around how people might know and perceive them. It was a continuation of a crisis in their public identity.

And finally, the debate centered on the "dear old name," Brethren. There were some who felt it was an unhelpful name because it was confused with other denominations and secret orders. But overall, there was tone of beauty, nostalgia and calm when members spoke of this word. Proponents of Brethren gave impassioned speeches that reminded members of their roots and how Jesus himself used this name. No other word seemed to so fully engage tenderness. It was a word that invoked statements such as, "let us cling to it." It was so dear to one brother that he researched how many times "Brethren" was used in the Bible: over 500 times. The following plea is one of the few known statements given by a woman regarding the name change. Lydia Barnhart’s 1904 impromptu statement came after a committee had suggested the name, "New Testament Church." Her words are representative of how most did not want to lose the "Brethren" word:

"There is no dearer name on earth than the name that Jesus himself gave the church, "Brethren." It seems to me it is more suitable than any other name, and it seems that when we drop that name it will seem so strange to us, it will seem so much farther away, it will seem so much dearer to us, the precious name that Jesus gave, "Brethren.""

By 1908, if there was to be a name change, members wanted Brethren in the title, and resulted in a strong vote in favor of the Church of the Brethren.

After the decision was made the Gospel Messenger initiated the process of incorporating the new name into its 200 year history and minimized the importance of the word Dunker by framing it as a culprit of persecution. This newly created folklore was again echoed in a 1939 issue of Gospel Messenger. The Church of the Brethren had found rest and calm after the storm – at least temporarily.


Postscript: The 20th Century Conundrum

The Church of the Brethren in the late 20th Century is faced with the question of what to do when its name no longer sounds generic, but gendered, for some members and to some outside the denomination. This conundrum has resurfaced the age-old question of identity and role, and the fear of losing the recognition it has gained with its current name. Changing the name signals a loss of identity for many – an identity that is not readily known to many in the Christian tradition. 20th century Brethren have become well accustomed to explaining themselves to outsiders as "like" the Mennonites or Quakers, just as the 19th century Brethren clarified themselves to outsiders as Dunkers. The recent call for a name change seems to threaten an already delicate identity. However, in contrast to the name crisis at the turn of the century, the contemporary debate includes the question of gender. Gender consciousness in our culture does not allow the term brethren to so easily pass as generic, and for some, the name is explicitly exclusive of women.

After 1973 members of the Church of the Brethren began questioning the denominational name as male-biased and discriminatory. Mirroring the feminist movement of the 70’s, women and men in the Church of the Brethren called for greater inclusion of women in general and called for a new name. The debate for a name change was a common theme in the 70’s and occasionally showed up in opinion pieces, features and editorials in the denominational periodical, Messenger. In the 70’s, three papers were passed which affirmed women’s equality and increased participation in positions of leadership. In 1975 a task force was appointed to study language in the church and concluded that a name change would not be advisable at the time, but encouraged an awareness that might result in a change of name. The 1980’s were virtually silent on the issue, until 1988 when the World Council of Churches organized the Decade In Solidarity With Women. A resolution was passed by Annual Conference to "look at the treatment of women in the church and in society and for the church to take the initiative in being inclusive."

There was an organized effort to bring the issue to Annual Conference business by 1991. Many letters were collected from members who supported a name change. The content of the letters spoke of the name’s discriminatory nature, the embarrassment of using it in public, the impediment to church growth, and the way it discounted the church’s commitment to peace and social justice. The effort to have the name included on the agenda for 1991 business was unsuccessful, but a study committee was appointed in 1992 to study whether or not a committee should be formed to study the church name. The study committee suggested a timetable for addressing the matter by 2008, the 300th anniversary of the church, but no official action was taken to ensure a movement toward a name change. The committee was dismissed with the "knowledge that the discussion will continue."

The last movement toward a change happened in 1993 when 20 women (and one man) attending the 1993 feminist ecumenical Re-Imagining Conference publicly changed the name of the Church of the Brethren to Church of Reconciliation. This action resulted in a public censure by denominational leadership and the issue has remained officially tabled. The feminist Church of the Brethren organization, Womaen’s Caucus, has recently sought to continue the discussion, inviting individuals and churches to talk seriously about this issue with hopes of a decision by 2008, the 300th anniversary of the denomination. Most recently, two congregations have sent queries to be discussed at their respective district conferences in the fall of 2001. The queries raise questions about evangelism, growth, inclusivity, and ask the denomination to consider seriously the importance and significance a name holds. Both queries ask for a denomination-wide discussion. Neither query is calling for a name change, but rather invite serious dialogue about the issue, which may or may not result in a change. As was true of the 1908 conversation surrounding the name, today’s discussion encompasses questions of who the denomination is, and what it hopes to become. While the name remains uncertain for the future, it seems likely that members will continue to question and affirm the validity of the Brethren name, inviting dialogue and conversation – on that invokes far reaching questions about identity, purpose and mission.

Download a pdf of this paper or a Historical Timeline of our names.
blocks_image