7

Pilgrim Holiness History -- 1936

“The Finch Dissention”

 

What do you do when your denomination gets too liberal? Do you stay in your denomination and try to work for a return to the conservative paths or do you split off and start a new denomination?  How far do things have to go before you’d be willing to walk out with like-minded people to start something new? This was the question Pilgrim preacher R. G. Finch and his followers faced in Colorado in the 1930’s

 

R G. Finch was a hot-hearted preacher who expected people to take their religion seriously. He believed in being completely sold out to God which meant a Christian would be completely dead to the world and worldliness. He had served as the General Superintendent of Foreign missions until 1930 when the reorganization left him out of a denominational position. He took a newly invented position of “General Evangelist” and went on the road preaching revivals and camp meetings. There he called for a complete dying out to carnality. But he found a lack of total commitment in the churches he visited and saw worldliness creeping in. Trying to fight against this slippage he organized “Prayer Conferences” across the church hoping to bring renewal and revival. Many were packed with Pilgrim preachers as they too sought a revival of old fashioned holiness preaching and living. Finch’s powerful preaching placed heavy emphasis on “the death route” to entire sanctification—totally dying out to the world through a period of self-renunciation and self mortification. Some Pilgrim preachers were taking a more positive “take it by faith” approach which offered sanctification through a simple prayer of consecration and faith. Finch didn’t think it was that easy. He called for the total mortification and crucifixion of the “old man” which took longer. Only after anguished self-mortification and painful surrender did a complete “dying out” happen. The resulting sanctified life would be one of total separation from “worldliness” or even anything that hinted at the carnal lifestyle prevalent in the world.

 

In this approach he was not radically different from many other Pilgrims, but he and his followers were definitely more conservative than many Pilgrims. For Finch the sanctified life was one of strict separation. Some Pilgrim women (especially in places like California) were wearing three-quarter length sleeves exhibiting their bare arms for anyone to see. others were shortening their dresses to barely four inches below their knees. Others were sporting nylon stockings which made their legs appear “nude” rather than wear their dresses near the floor with white or black stockings modestly covering their legs[1]. In matters of a woman’s dress R. G. Finch did not flinch at expecting women to look radically different from the world.[2] This conservative approach made Finch a conservative-among-conservatives—the Pilgrims were already fairly conservative in these matters.  His insistence on the “death route” to sanctification, and his radical ideas about lifestyle got him in trouble with the denomination’s leaders.

 

All denominations have a spectrum of conservatives to progressives. Even among today’s “Conservative Holiness movement” there is such a spectrum. In all denominations and movements there are labels. The conservatives label the progressives “liberals” while the progressives label the conservatives “legalists.” Sometimes they get along, but eventually a controversy over something boils over and the conservatives say “that’s far enough.” Then they sometimes split from the “liberal” denomination. That is not exactly what happened with R. G. Finch, but it resembles the situation. By 1933 Finch had taken a Pilgrim pastorate in Colorado and was a powerful influence in the Colorado Springs Bible School. He was feeling that the Pilgrim Holiness Church was losing its radical sense of holiness separation from the world and the denomination was increasingly compromising with the world. He decried the absence of powerful holiness preaching that would prompt all-out surrender and a strict godly lifestyle. 

 

Denominational leaders saw things differently. They saw Finch’s traveling “prayer conferences” as a move to build personal support for a separatist movement that would bring about an eventual “split” from the Pilgrims.[3] They saw his “death route” to holiness as out of sync with the denomination’s own doctrine. Denominational leaders heard that Finch had consulted an attorney who had told him and his followers how they could take the Bible School property away legally from the denomination. The leaders first warned Finch then threatened his removal from office. Finch declined to bow. He was removed from his office in January, 1936.  Within days Finch and his followers had organized a work called the Immanuel Missionary Church and invited others to join them. Many did, believing the denomination was being too heavy-handed[4] using its newfound power from the 1930 General Conference. Within a week a new Bible School[5] was begun in the suburbs of Colorado Springs and most of the faculty and students of the Pilgrim College followed Finch into his new denomination.[6]

 

The Emmanuel Missionary Church split from the Pilgrims, and continued their Bible school until 1995. The denomination continues to today and was recently (March, 2009) featured in The Colorado Springs Gazette.  Apparently the new group was not immune to its own splits for there are actually two denominations that now exist—the Emmanuel Missionary Church and their own split, the Immanuel Missionary Church.[7]  The remnant Pilgrims in Colorado hired a new faculty and reopened the Bible school but they graduated no students in 1936. By 1937 they graduated five students and it increased to 10-15 per year after that. The Pilgrim college eventually relocated in 1959 to Bartlesville Oklahoma where it is today called “Oklahoma Wesleyan University.” Some of the Finch family stayed with the split church while others found their way back into the Pilgrim Church.[8]  

 

The Pilgrim splitters from Methodism now faced their own splitters. Before 1930 the Pilgrims were gathering up new converts along with splits and splinters from Methodism. Now they faced heir own split. As the Nazarenes had faced the Rees’ succession, the Pilgrims now faced Finch. This time the hot-hearted warrior was Finch and the moderates were the Pilgrim leaders, who gained a bit more sympathy for the Nazarene leaders in Pasadena. The accusation of heavy-handedness was now aimed at Rees’ own protégée, General Superintendent, W. L. Surbrook. While the Finch split succeeded, the Pilgrims were not happy to see him go. Then (as now) they judged the man “a well-meaning but mistaken leader[9].” Was he?  Perhaps you can decide for yourself by reading these documents:

·       The Colorado District statement on the Finch dissention written to Pilgrims at large.

·       Daniel Finch, grandson of R. G. Finch collection of R. G. Finch excerpts, letters and bio.

·       Vangie Armiger response to the R. G. Finch story

 

 

To think about….

1. What would it take for you to leave your denomination causing a “split”? Where is your “line?”  What about your local church?

2. The Protestant notion that every person has a right to a private judgment in the matters of religion seems to generate a “centrifugal force” among Protestant denominations, with one splitting off another as they decide their own convictions are right and their denomination is wrong. Yet even in the new denominations that force seems to “split the splitters.” Protestants split from the Catholics, then the Methodists split from the Protestant/Anglicans. The Wesleyan Methodists, Free Methodists, Pilgrims and Nazarenes were mostly a collection of splits and splinters from the Methodists. Now the Immanuel Missionary Church split from the Pilgrims. Is this splitting force good in that it brings vibrancy to the church or is it bad in presenting a divided front to the world? Which of these splits were good and which were bad?

3. Splitters who are successful are often considered heroes—George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are considered “Founding Fathers” for splitting their country from the mother country. However the country considered Jefferson Davis and the Southern Secessionists treasonous. How is this? Orange Scott and Luther Lee are honored for splitting the Wesleyan Methodists from the Methodists but Finch is considered mistaken for splitting the Immanuel Mission Church form the Pilgrims. It seems that once the secessionists succeed they label all future succession treasonous—why is that?

4. The centralization of the Pilgrims in 1930 produced a moderating effect (or “liberalizing effect,” depending on your perspective) in the Pilgrim Holiness Church for the next 25-30 years. To what extent is centralization a conservative, moderating or liberalizing effect in your own denomination. Is it different today than it was in the past?

5. While the length of dresses, nylon stockings or “bobbed hair” may not be divisive issues in your denomination today, what are the issues where there are differences? Are any of these a cause for a justified “split” from the denomination? Which are or aren’t?

6. To what extent does your own denomination have regional differences in lifestyle expectations? Can a denomination even enforce one unified standard of behavior for all the people in all parts of a nation? World?

7. Most Pilgrim leaders concluded Finch was a godly man but was misguided. Can you tell of any incidents you know of where a person was godly, but misguided?

8. If you had been Finch how would you have done things differently? If you had been Surbrook?  A Bible college student?

9. Even through dissention and splits the children and grandchildren in the family are not always turned away from God and the church. Virtually all of Finch’s children entered the ministry and his grandchildren continue to serve God all around the world. If dissention and succession “happens” in your church or denomination how do you keep your children from being destroyed by it?

 

So what do you think?

During the first few weeks, click here to comment or read comments

 

Keith Drury   October 20, 2009

 www.TuesdayColumn.com

 



[1] We have focused here more on a woman’s dress than a man’s simply because there was more concern for that—among both the Pilgrims and the Finch folk. As for the men's dress, one would not be able to tell a Pilgrim preacher from a Nazarene or Immanuel preacher, though the Immanuel neckties tended to black (or at most risqué, dark navy) while the Pilgrims felt free to wear patterned neckties. The Pilgrim women dressed very modestly, even severely the world might say. Dresses tended to be well below the knee, three or four inches, and always with hosiery.  Sleeves were full length and (at this time in Colorado) so-called “Three-quarter length sleeves” were out. Both Pilgrims and the Immanuel women rolled their long hair rats or wore it in buns, or a more fancy French braid. Jewelry was unacceptable, though for Pilgrims a brooch was acceptable for some reason. Wristwatches were questionable, especially if they had flashy gold or silver bands. The emphasis was on simplicity very much like the Amish or Mennonites. When it came to children, the Immanuel folk expected their little girls to wear cotton hose not exposing any bare skin while some Pilgrims allowed their daughters to wear anklets or “MaryJanes.” Make-up was not considered acceptable to either group and was often referred to in preaching as “war paint."  All of this was considered a matter of separation from the world, and for the sake of simplicity as it was and is for the Quakers, Amish and Mennonites.

[2] In this Finch family picture remember that many women of all denominations dressed more “modestly” at the time though “holiness women took the counter-revolution against the “Flappers” to a more serious length.  In the 1920’s a new style emerged in the secular culture: “bobbed hair,” cutting a woman’s hair short. The new style was promoted by Hollywood film stars and was quickly adopted by the “flappers,” a movement of young woman who disdained conventional approaches to womanhood by shortening their skirts, wearing bold make-up, driving automobiles, smoking, dancing sexily and insisting on their right to engage  in casual sex. Christian woman and men were universally aghast. They rejected this “package” of values and likewise rejected some the social symbols that came to represent them: make-up, dancing, short skirts, and “bobbed hair” (though not women driving automobiles eventually).  If secular woman would make these things symbols of their sexual liberation, many holiness women decided to steer clear of these symbols.  They did not want to be seen as a “flapper” and all this implied at the time.  If “bobbed hair” and shorter skirts meant sexual liberation, holiness women intended to go the opposite way—leaving both their hair and hems long.  (A longer treatment of the “bobbed hair” issue and holiness can be found in my 25th anniversary edition of Holiness For Ordinary People.)

[3] In this story I give the benefit of the doubt to R. G. Finch though many of the eye witnesses that I interviewed for this story are not so generous to Finch. Some interpret the story politically like this: “Finch was a dominant force among Pilgrims as the General Superintendent over foreign Missions but his influence declined by the 1930 general conference when moderates restructured the denomination to simply eliminate his job (and influence). Finch hoped he would become the single General Superintendent but the moderates put up Seth Rees who was impossible for Finch to beat.  Finch was a leader who was out of a job so he took his new unpaid title of “General Evangelist” to hold Prayer Conferences” across the church build support for launching a more conservative denomination which he planned to lead or get elected GS after Rees. In two years in 1932 Rees was gone and the General church put W. L. Surbrook into the unexpired term of Rees instead of Finch. Finch had been rejected again. Then, in two more years (at the 1934 Assembly) Finch could not beat Surbrook and the Assembly turned around and invented a new office over missions, the General Secretary of Foreign Missions, and Finch was not even elected to this position. This triple rejection of Finch’s leadership by the Pilgrims is behind his move to split off his own group—he was a rejected leader who tried to make something to lead.”  I do not know how accurate this interpretation is. Who is to say what motivated Finch? Certainly when the man was General Superintendent then was restructured out of office, then not selected for other positions would be noticed even by the most saintly man. And natural or anointed leaders do feel compelled to lead and the denomination did not seem to have any leadership position for Finch other then the contrived “General Evangelist” and pastoring a local church in Colorado Springs. While this interpretation should be considered it is probably does not account for the whole story in my opinion. Rather then the “rejected leader” interpretation I personally see the Finch affair as two strains of Pilgrims vying for the future of the denomination. The Finch strain wanted a more radical separatist small-but-pure denomination, while the “Church growth strain” wanted a more positive optimistic evangelistic big-tent denomination. The denominational leaders were solidly in the Church growth camp often saying they refused to “major on minors.” The explosion of church growth among Pilgrims during the next decade seems to testify to this approach’s success.

[4] Apparently there was “some history” between the two young leaders, Finch and the new General Superintendent, W. L. Surbrook. Both had lived in the close knit community of Kingswood, Kentucky. It is my (unsubstantiated) opinion that they may have seen each other at the extremes of the Pilgrim Church’s future and they were vying for which road the denomination would take. I think Surbrook saw Finch as a radical conservative preacher who wanted to take the denomination to extreme separatism. I think Finch saw Surbrook as a liberal who wanted to lead the denomination toward mainline higher education and liberalism. Both men may have thought there was more at stake than the property and people in Colorado. At the 1930 General Conference the unified restructuring had left Finch out in the cold with nothing more than the unfunded “General Evangelist” position. Rees was elected the solo General Superintendent with Surbrook as assistant. When Rees died, Surbrook took over. Thus, when Finch faced the denomination he may have considered that he was facing a man who would lead the denomination away from the radical holiness he believed was the Pilgrim’s calling. Likewise Surbrook may have seen Finch as attempting to turn the Pilgrims into a sect more like the Amish than a centrist Holiness denomination. But all of this is personal conjecture—I do not know for sure. I can say this: the centralization of power in the Pilgrim church enabled a more moderate stance on most hot-button issues for the next 25 years, with the denominational leaders invariably standing with moderates—not conservatives—on virtually every issue that came up, including a later succession of Pilgrims in New York and elsewhere over the wearing of wedding rings.

[5] The oral tradition today in the western part of the Wesleyan Church still remembers that the dissenters even took the student desks from the Pilgrim Bible college so that the few remaining students (and the new faculty) had to find their own desks to reopen the Bible School, but I cannot anywhere in print confirm this tradition but it is a comical side story. E. R. Mitchell who was a student at the time said in an interview (2009) that he knew nothing of any desks being taken to the new school.

[6] The local history of the churches should be cited as a potential factor here. Much of the Colorado work had come from The People’s Mission that was founded by the independent-minded William Lee who had taken the work into the Nazarene Church then left that denomination nine months later because “the government was too congregational.” The tradition of independent entrepreneurial launching of inner-city missions, foreign missionary boards and even Bible schools was recent and highly lauded among Pilgrims so Finch may have considered what he was doing to be purely “natural church growth.”

[7] The President of the Pilgrim’s Bible college (and also DS of the district) was D. W. Reynolds who was a loyal Finch follower. The two of them together orchestrated the split and both were removed from their positions. Later R. G. Finch and his son Paul split from Reynolds to form the Immanuel Missionary Church which was an association of ministers with independent churches. In the original split Finch took from the Pilgrims leaders like J. R. Mitchell and his brother E. R. Mitchell. These two brothers, along with Eldon Rotz followed Finch into the second split but raised troublesome doctrinal questions about the “death route” promoted by Finch. They were pastors of local churches in and around Salem, Ohio when in the spring of 1952 they received letters excommunicating all three of them from the Emmanuel association. At this point L. W. Drury, District Superintendent of the Pittsburg District of the Pilgroms arranged for taking into the Pilgrim Church  all three ministers.

[8] General Superintendent Tom Armiger’s wife, Vangie is the daughter of J. R Mitchell and a granddaughter of R. G, Finch—her mother was Naomi Finch, daughter of R. G. Finch. Grandson Daniel Finch is now 73 and serves as part-time Assistant Pastor at the largest Wesleyan Church, 12Stone near Atlanta Georgia where he also serves as part-time Assistant District Superintendent for the Wesleyan Church. R. G. Finch’s great grandson, Lowell Adams is now under appointment as a Wesleyan missionary by Global Partners in Haiti.

[9] This is the summary statement in the official Pilgrim history, The Days of our Pilgrimage. It is a exceedingly magnanimous statement for the primary writer of the history, Paul Thomas who was from the Colorado district work, had worked closely with R. G. Finch and his son, and (along with Armor Peisker) picked up the pieces at the Pilgrim’s Colorado Springs Bible school. I personally heard dozens of stories from Paul Thomas and Armor Peisker about this affair when I worked with both of them for more than a decade beginning in the 1970’s at the Wesleyan headquarters. My take on this story is based somewhat on those conversations.