{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_33587/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_33587","id":"gutenberg_33587","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33587","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Sociology","Rural churches -- Ohio","Social surveys -- Ohio","Sociology, Rural"],"text":"Produced by Tom Roch and the Online Distributed Proofreading\nTeam at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from\nimages produced by Core Historical Literature in Agriculture\n(CHLA), Cornell University and The Internet Archives.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSIX THOUSAND COUNTRY CHURCHES\n\n\n\n\n THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n NEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO . DALLAS\n ATLANTA . SAN FRANCISCO\n\n MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED\n LONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA\n MELBOURNE\n\n THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.\n TORONTO\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: THE COUNTRY CHURCHES OF OHIO]\n\n\n\n\n SIX THOUSAND COUNTRY CHURCHES\n\n\n BY\n CHARLES OTIS GILL\n AND\n GIFFORD PINCHOT\n\n AUTHORS OF \"THE COUNTRY CHURCH\"\n\n\n PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL\n OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN AMERICA\n\n\n New York\n THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n 1919\n _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n COPYRIGHT, 1919\n BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n\n Set up and electrotyped. Published November, 1919\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n _PART I_ CONDITIONS AND REMEDIES\n\n INTRODUCTION xiii\n\n CHAPTER\n\n I. HOW THE FACTS WERE GATHERED 3\n\n II. THE RURAL CHURCH MAPS OF OHIO 5\n\n III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 8\n\n Oversupply of Churches--The churches small and weak--\n Attendance--An absentee ministry--Divided effort of the\n ministry--Short term of minister's service--Defective\n overhead organization--Ministers' salaries--Educational\n equipment of the minister.\n\n IV. WHERE CHURCH EFFICIENCY IS LOWEST 12\n\n V. THE CHURCH IN THE EIGHTEEN COUNTIES 19\n\n VI. A POLICY AND PROGRAM 40\n\n 1. A better program--2. A better ministry--3. Better\n support--4. Better acquaintance--5. Re-arrangement of\n circuits--6. More resident ministers--7. Interchurch\n cooperation--8. Community churches--9. Non-sectarian\n support.\n\n VII. FEDERATED CHURCHES 59\n\n 1. Greene Township--2. Aurora--3. Garrettsville--4.\n Northfield--5. Federated churches in other states.\n\n VIII. OTHER PROGRESSIVE CHURCHES 75\n\n 1. A church federation--2. Cooperation with other social\n forces--3. Community service and Christian unity--4.\n Christian unity by necessity--5. The church as a force\n for righteousness--(a) Old Fort--(b) Lakeville.\n\n IX. AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION 88\n\n\n _PART II_ TABULAR SUMMARIES AND MAPS\n\n I. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE DENOMINATIONS 93\n\n II. TABULAR SUMMARIES FOR THE STATE 110\n\n Table I.--Population, average number of Persons and\n Churches, and average number of Persons to a Church,\n by Townships 111\n\n Table II.--Churches classified according to the number\n of their members 112\n\n Table III.--Amount of Ministerial Service by Townships,\n Villages, and Churches 114\n\n Table IV.--Number of Churches in Villages and in the\n Open Country 115\n\n Table V.--Resident Ministers in Strictly Rural Townships\n in the Open Country and in Villages 118\n\n Table VI.--Terms of Service of Methodist Episcopal\n Country Ministers, 1917 119\n\n Table VII.--Average number of Persons to a Church in\n 1170 Rural Townships 121\n\n Table VIII.--Average number of Persons to a Church in\n Rural Townships, Suburban Townships, and Cities 122\n\n Table IX.--Salaries of Methodist Episcopal Country\n Ministers, 1917 123\n\n Table X.--Salaries of Country Ministers, United Brethren\n in Christ, 1917 123\n\n III. TABULAR SUMMARIES BY COUNTIES 124\n\n\n _PART III_ THE COUNTY MAPS\n\n EXPLANATORY NOTE 145\n\n COUNTRY CHURCH MAPS OF THE EIGHTY-EIGHT COUNTIES OF OHIO 147\n\n\n APPENDIX\n\n ACTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERCHURCH COOPERATION OF THE OHIO\n RURAL LIFE ASSOCIATION 235\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF MAPS\n\n\n The Country Churches of Ohio _Frontispiece_\n\n PAGE\n\n Map A. Where Conditions Demand Missionary Aid 26\n\n Map 1. High Death Rates from Tuberculosis 27\n\n Map 2. High Rates of Illegitimacy 28\n\n Map 3. Where Illiteracy Abounds 29\n\n Map 4. Distribution of Foreign Born Whites 30\n\n Map 5. Excessive Over-Churching 31\n\n Map 6. Churches many but Ministers Few 32\n\n Map 7. Number of Persons to a Resident Minister 33\n\n Map 8. Value of Farm Property in the Year 1910 34\n\n Map 9. Increase in Value of Farm Property 35\n\n Map 10. Rich Land and Poor Land 36\n\n Map 11. Showing that in 317 or 27 per cent of\n the Strictly Rural Townships no Church has a\n Resident Minister 49\n\n Map 12. Farms Operated by Tenants 84\n\n Map 13. Farms Operated by Tenants 85\n\n Map 14. Methodist Episcopal 96\n\n Map 15. United Brethren in Christ 97\n\n Map 16. Presbyterian 98\n\n Map 17. Baptist 99\n\n Map 18. Disciples of Christ 100\n\n Map 19. Lutheran 101\n\n Map 20. Catholic 102\n\n Map 21. Christian 103\n\n Map 22. Methodist Protestant 104\n\n Map 23. Reformed 105\n\n Map 24. Congregational 106\n\n Map 25. Evangelical Association 107\n\n Map 26. Villages and Cities 117\n\n County Maps:\n Adams 147\n Allen 148\n Ashland 149\n Ashtabula 150\n Athens 151\n Auglaize 152\n Belmont 153\n Brown 154\n Butler 155\n Carroll 156\n Champaign 157\n Clark 158\n Clermont 159\n Clinton 160\n Columbiana 161\n Coshocton 162\n Crawford 163\n Cuyahoga 164\n Darke 165\n Defiance 166\n Delaware 167\n Erie 168\n Fairfield 169\n Fayette 170\n Franklin 171\n Fulton 172\n Gallia 173\n Geauga 174\n Greene 175\n Guernsey 176\n Hamilton 177\n Hancock 178\n Hardin 179\n Harrison 180\n Henry 181\n Highland 182\n Hocking 183\n Holmes 184\n Huron 185\n Jackson 186\n Jefferson 187\n Knox 188\n Lake 189\n Lawrence 190\n Licking 191\n Logan 192\n Lorain 193\n Lucas 194\n Madison 195\n Mahoning 196\n Marion 197\n Medina 198\n Meigs 199\n Mercer 200\n Miami 201\n Monroe 202\n Montgomery 203\n Morgan 204\n Morrow 205\n Muskingum 206\n Noble 207\n Ottawa 208\n Paulding 209\n Perry 210\n Pickaway 211\n Pike 212\n Portage 213\n Preble 214\n Putnam 215\n Richland 216\n Ross 217\n Sandusky 218\n Scioto 219\n Seneca 220\n Shelby 221\n Stark 222\n Summit 223\n Trumbull 224\n Tuscarawas 225\n Union 226\n Van Wert 227\n Vinton 228\n Warren 229\n Washington 230\n Wayne 231\n Williams 232\n Wood 233\n Wyandot 234\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nIn 1913 Mr. Gill and I published, under the authority of the Federal\nCouncil of the Churches of Christ in America, the results of an inquiry\ninto the condition of the country church in two typical counties--Windsor\nCounty, Vermont, and Tompkins County, New York. The disclosure of the\nconditions in these two counties and the conclusions to which they pointed\nled to the creation of the Commission on Church and Country Life of the\nFederal Council. Under the direction of the Commission, it was resolved to\nextend the investigation of the country church to an entire State. For the\nreasons given hereafter, the choice fell upon Ohio.\n\nFor the plan whose execution and results are here set forth, Mr. Gill and\nI are jointly responsible. It was submitted to, and revised and approved\nby, the Commission on Church and Country Life, in whose name and under\nwhose direct supervision it was carried out. The field work was done\nentirely by Mr. Gill or under his immediate direction as Secretary of the\nCommission, and he also worked up in the office the result of his work in\nthe field. As in the case of \"The Country Church,\" I am responsible for\nthe final revision of the manuscript for the press. It is now published\nwith the approval of the Commission on Church and Country Life, and as a\nreport of its work.\n\nIn the introduction to \"The Country Church,\" I said and I desire to\nrepeat,--\"Mr. Gill's peculiar fitness for the work of this investigation\narises in part from his long and intimate personal acquaintance with the\nproblem of country life. For fifteen years he has been a country minister.\nOne of his tasks was to establish a church in a country community in\nVermont which had been without one for more than twenty years. When Mr.\nGill came to it, the moral and social laxity of the whole community was\nflagrant. Disbelief in the existence of goodness appeared to be common,\npublic disapproval of indecency was timid or lacking, and religion was in\ngeneral disrepute. Not only was there no day of worship, but also no day\nof rest. Life was mean, hard, small, selfish, and covetous. Land belonging\nto the town was openly pillaged by the public officers who held it in\ntrust; real estate values were low; and among the respectable families\nthere was a general desire to sell their property and move away.\n\nThen a church was organized. The change which followed was swift,\nstriking, thorough, and enduring. The public property of the town, once a\nsource of graft and demoralization, became a public asset. The value of\nreal estate increased beyond all proportion to the general rise of land\nvalues elsewhere. In the decade and a half which has elapsed since the\nchurch began its work, boys and girls of a new type have been brought up.\nThe reputation of the village has been changed from bad to good, public\norder has greatly improved, and the growth of the place as a summer resort\nhas begun. It is fair to say that the establishment of the church under\nMr. Gill began a new era in the history of the town.\"\n\nIt was with this record of practical success in the country church,\nsupplemented by the very unusual experience as an investigator which he\nacquired in collecting and analyzing the material for \"The Country\nChurch,\" that Mr. Gill approached the task whose results are here set\ndown. The task of ascertaining with accuracy the conditions of the country\nchurch in other portions of the United States still remains. The remedies\nare yet to be applied.\n\nGIFFORD PINCHOT.\n\n Milford, Penna.\n Aug. 26, 1918.\n\n\n\n\nSIX THOUSAND COUNTRY CHURCHES\n\nPART I\n\nCONDITIONS AND REMEDIES\n\n\n\n\nSIX THOUSAND COUNTRY CHURCHES\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nHOW THE FACTS WERE GATHERED\n\n\nThe Commission on Church and Country Life of the Federal Council of the\nChurches of Christ in America conducted the work whose results are\nsummarized in this book. Several thousand persons assisted in collecting\nthe data here given. Lists of churches were obtained from correspondents\nin every township in Ohio, and township maps were sent to them for marking\nthe location of the churches. Ministers, clerks, and other officers of\nchurches, district superintendents, and other denominational leaders gave\nindispensable information.\n\nThe very important material gathered by the Ohio Rural Life Survey,\nincluding country church maps of twelve counties and many data for\nseventeen other counties, was placed at the disposal of the Commission.\n\nInvaluable assistance has been rendered by State, County, and Township\nSunday School Associations. In about half of the townships, officers of\nthe township associations supplied needed information. Miss Clara E.\nClemmer, Secretary of the County Association, gathered nearly all the data\nfor Preble County. The Rev. C. A. Spriggs, a Missionary of the American\nSunday School Union, furnished most of the facts used in making the map of\nPike County.\n\nIn a few counties, superintendents of public schools either gave desired\ninformation themselves, or supplied the names of others who did, and in\nsome cases the agricultural agents lent a hand.\n\nCounty atlases were consulted, and verifications and corrections were\nobtained from many sources. The topographical maps issued by the United\nStates Geological Survey gave the locations of certain churches. The Year\nBooks of the various denominational bodies were in constant use for\nverification and reference, as were the United States Census, the Ohio\nStatistical Reports, and other Government documents.\n\nIn the different sections of Ohio Mr. Gill made extensive investigations\non the ground, while large numbers of country ministers and church members\nwere consulted personally. Specific information has thus been collected in\nnearly every township, while at country church institutes and conferences\nin various parts of the State, many facts were secured from the\ndiscussions on rural church conditions. Not only has information,\ntherefore, been received from very many people intimately associated with\nthe churches of rural Ohio, but also, and very widely, from personal\nobservation on the field itself.\n\nIn spite of all the care that could be taken, after the work on the\ntownship maps was thought to be finished, a few other churches were\ndiscovered. If, in the future, still other churches should be found which\nare not on the maps, the number of them will be insignificant. Their\ndiscovery will doubtless in no wise affect the conclusions which have been\ndrawn as to the country church situation in Ohio, nor their omission\nimpair the general usefulness of the maps.\n\nIn the constructive work of the Commission and of the Ohio Rural Life\nAssociation for rural church betterment, as well as in the survey, the\nOhio State University, under Dr. Thompson, has always given free and\nvaluable cooperation.\n\nFor all this kind assistance the Commission and the Association are deeply\ngrateful, and here express their hearty thanks.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE RURAL CHURCH MAPS OF OHIO\n\n\nIn Part III of this volume are 88 country church maps, one for each county\nin the State of Ohio. The making of these maps was part of a program\nadopted in 1914 by the Commission on Church and Country Life of the\nFederal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. It seemed to the\nCommission that an attempt ought to be made to test the possibilities of\nrural church improvement through interdenominational cooperation in some\none State. Ohio was chosen because of its geographical location, because\nof the variety of its church conditions, and because in a number of its\ncounties a country church survey had already been made. This survey had\nindicated a widespread need for the readjustment of church life to\ncommunity welfare in rural Ohio.\n\nIt was therefore determined, if possible, to complete a series of maps for\nthe entire State which would summarize the facts. In dealing with so many\nchurches in so large an area, it was of course feasible to collect only a\nvery small number of facts concerning each church. Accordingly the facts\nto be gathered were limited to the location of every rural church, its\ndenomination, its present membership, whether it is gaining or losing in\nmembership, whether it ordinarily has a resident pastor, and if not, what\npart of a minister's service it receives.\n\nThe collection of such facts was necessary, first, to impress upon the\nchurch officials and others the actual urgency of the situation, and\nsecond, to provide a basis for a workable policy of interchurch\ncooperation and reciprocity in influencing or directing the redistribution\nof ministers and churches.\n\nWhile the making of the church maps appeared to be the least amount of\npreliminary work that would open the way for effective action, it was\nevident that nothing adequate could be done for rural church betterment\nwithout interdenominational, or undenominational, organization. Therefore,\nwhen the branch office of the Commission on Church and Country Life was\nopened in Columbus, Ohio, in August, 1914, at the same time the Ohio Rural\nLife Association was formed to cooperate with the Commission in its work\nin the State. Soon afterward a Committee on Interchurch Cooperation,\nconsisting of executives in charge of the country churches of eleven\ndenominations, was organized. The principles which it adopted to govern\nits action mark a forward step of real importance. (See page 235.)\n\nThe chief burden of making the church maps has rested upon the Commission\non Church and Country Life. Its paid executive and office force have done\nthe main part of the work, but valuable assistance has been rendered by\nthe Ohio Rural Life Association. Much of the work was done in its name.\n\nIncidentally, the cooperative work of these bodies has by no means been\nconfined to the making of surveys. Country Life Institutes have been held,\nand an educational propaganda in the interest of the rural church has been\ncontinuously carried on, with the result that in Ohio more than in any\nother State has the country church gained ground in its command of public\ninterest. As a subject for addresses and discussion the country church has\na place in a large number of farmers' institutes, and in nearly all Sunday\nschool conventions, while during Farmers' Week at the State Agricultural\nCollege, conferences on no other subject have attracted more people or\nprovoked more animated discussion.\n\nInasmuch as the collecting of the data extended over a period of more than\nthree years, the maps do not all represent the exact situation at the same\nmoment. While they were being made some of the churches were being\nredistributed in different circuits, and membership rolls were increasing\nor decreasing. Since the map for their county was completed some churches\nhave federated, or their members have all united in a denominational\nunion church. But while the maps do not constitute a snap shot of the\nentire State, the changes which have taken place are too few in any way to\ninvalidate the conclusions drawn. The total situation is indicated with\nsufficient correctness.\n\nThese maps should supply the indispensable basis for the readjustment that\nis obviously required. We hope that the publishing of them will not only\nregister a stage of progress in the State of Ohio, but that in other\nStates also similar work will be undertaken, and that the forward movement\nin rural church life will be strengthened and accelerated throughout the\nnation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nSUMMARY OF RESULTS\n\n\nOhio contains in its area of 41,060 square miles, some 1,388 townships. If\nwe exclude the townships in which the population is urban, those in which\nthere are villages of more than 2,500 inhabitants (the number set by the\nUnited States Census as separating the country from the town), those which\ncontain parts of, or border on, large town or city parishes, there remain\n1,170 townships which may be classed as strictly rural. These rural\ntownships have in all 6,060 churches and nearly 1,700,000 persons. Each of\nthem has on an average a population of 1,448 persons, with five churches,\nor one church to every 280 persons. If we include with the strictly rural\ntownships the rural sections of townships not exclusively rural, there are\nin Ohio no less than 6,642 country churches.\n\nAs these facts would indicate, the country churches of Ohio for the most\npart are small and weak. According to data gathered by the earlier survey\nmade under the direction of the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions, the\nchurches whose membership is less than 100 as a rule do not prosper, and\nthe smaller the membership the greater the proportion of the churches\nwhich are on the decline. In Ohio more than 4,500, or 66 per cent, of the\nrural churches have a membership of 100 or less; more than 3,600, or 55\nper cent, have a membership of 75 or less; more than 2,400, or 37 per\ncent, a membership of 50 or less.\n\nThe membership in these country churches is distressingly small, but the\nattendance is smaller still. The data available indicate that ordinarily\nit is less than half the membership.\n\nIn six churches taken at random, it was found that the figures ran as\nfollows:\n\n _Membership_ _Average attendance_\n 125 34\n 300 136\n 173 30 to 40\n 150 Less than 30\n 300 - 40\n ----- -----\n 1,048 270\n\nIn one township it is reported that the average attendance in each of its\neight churches is less than 25.\n\nOne of the most striking facts is the shortage of resident ministers.\nWhile a reasonable degree of interchurch cooperation should result in the\nmaintenance of a resident pastor in nearly every township, yet in 317, or\n27 per cent, of the strictly rural townships, no church has a resident\npastor. (See Map 11, page 49.) More than 4,400, or about two-thirds, of\nthe churches in rural Ohio, and 39 per cent of the villages are without\nresident ministers, while in the open country only 360, or 13 per cent, of\nthe 2,807 churches have resident pastors.\n\nThe efforts of the ministers are so scattered over fields more or less\nwidely separated that much of their effectiveness is lost. (Consult the\ncounty maps, pages 147-234.) More than 5,500 of the 6,642 country churches\nare without the full time service of a minister; 3,755 have only one-third\nor less of a minister's services; 2,500 have one-fourth or less; while\nmore than 750 have no regular service of a minister at all. A large number\nof ministers have other occupations than the ministry.\n\nMoreover it is a rule of nearly universal application that ministers of\ncountry churches in Ohio do not remain long enough in their parishes to\nmake effective service possible. According to the official records of the\nconferences of the largest and doubtless one of the most efficient of the\ndenominations, in the fall of 1917, 48 per cent of its rural ministers\nwere about to begin their first year, and 74 per cent either their first\nor second year of service in the fields to which they were appointed. Only\n26 per cent had had a two years' acquaintance with their parishes, while\nonly 8 ministers, or scarcely more than 1 per cent, had served as long as\nfive years. This condition is no better in nearly all the other\ndenominations.\n\nBecause of this, and also because the effort of the ministry is divided\namong various and widely separated churches, the people who live in the\nrural districts in Ohio receive too little pastoral service. The short\nterm also discourages the ministers from attempting to discover and meet\nthe needs of their communities and from formulating and carrying out any\nadequate plans of community service. The churches, as a rule, are not\ntrained to expect such service, nor the ministers to render it.\n\nIn certain extensive areas in Ohio the country church seems to have broken\ndown. (See Chapters IV and V.) In regions where it has been active for a\ncentury it has failed and is now failing to dispel ignorance and\nsuperstition, to prevent the spread of vice and disease, and to check the\nincreasing production of undeveloped and abnormal individuals. Because of\nthe lack of an organization to cooerdinate the work of the denominations,\nand to study the field as a whole, no one has been conscious of\nresponsibility for such failure. The conditions have not even been known\nby many of the church officials who were responsible, and a situation has\nbeen permitted to develop which threatens the welfare of the whole State\nand demands the immediate redirection of the Church's missionary\nactivities.\n\nThe pay of the country ministers in Ohio is small, the support of the\nchurch meager. According to the records of the Conferences held in the\nfall of 1917 the majority of the ministers (58 per cent) of the largest\ndenomination received less than $1,100 each, three-fourths (74.6 per cent)\nless than $1,200, while the average amount was $857 and free use of\nparsonage. In the denomination with the second largest number of country\nchurches the average salary was only $787, or $680 and free use of\nparsonage.\n\nOver considerable areas a large proportion of the ministers are\nuneducated. Often they are illiterate and entirely unfitted to render\nservice acceptable to the more intelligent part of their people. In most\nof the State, the standard of education for ministers is low. It is in\npart due to the failure of an insufficiently educated ministry to\nstimulate the intellectual life of the people, that from 1,500,000 to\n2,000,000 people in the State have no public libraries.\n\nUnless a larger and stronger social and religious institution is created\nin the country districts than is now found in the country church, the more\nvigorous young people will for the most part leave the country, and an\ninferior class will take their places on the farm. A process of reverse\nselection will therefore set in which must result in the general\ndebasement of our rural population and ultimately of our nation as a\nwhole. As is well known, this process of decadence is already taking place\nover very large areas in rural America.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nWHERE CHURCH EFFICIENCY IS LOWEST\n\n\nThe facts summarized in the previous chapter show that in rural Ohio the\nchurch as a whole is not adequately performing its great and difficult\ntask. It is equally evident that no institution could hope for a high\ndegree of success unless more progressive in method and administration.\nFurthermore, unless the urban officials or directors in charge of rural\nchurches come to appreciate the fundamental importance of the country\nchurch problem, address themselves more seriously to the task in hand, and\nmake really effective use of improved organization and available human and\nmaterial resources, the country church will continue to decline. While\nthere are very many successful churches, and many rural communities\nsocially, morally, and economically prosperous, failures occur in equally\nlarge numbers.\n\nA most striking illustration of the churches' inefficiency may be found in\nsouthern and southeastern Ohio. Here, in a region covering at least\neighteen counties, the failure of the churches may fairly be called\npathetic. These counties are Adams, Athens, Brown, Clermont, Gallia,\nHighland, Hocking, Jackson, Lawrence, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Noble, Pike,\nRoss, Scioto, Vinton, and Washington. In this area, after more than a\nhundred years of the work of the churches, the religious, social, and\neconomic welfare of the people are going down. Although the churches have\nbeen here for more than a century, no normal type of organized religion is\nreally flourishing, while the only kind which, during the past fifteen\nyears, has been gaining ground, the cult of the Holy Rollers, is scarcely\nbetter than that of a Dervish. The churches have failed and are failing to\ndispel ignorance and superstition, to prevent the increase of vice, the\nspread of disease, and the general moral and spiritual decadence of the\npeople.\n\nMost of the information concerning the Eighteen Counties, as for\nconvenience, this region is hereafter called, was derived from personal\ninvestigation on the ground by Mr. Gill, from the testimony of two trained\ninvestigators, and from interviews and correspondence with local\nmerchants, physicians, clergymen, school teachers, superintendents of\nschools and churches, farmers, and Sunday school workers. Information\nconfirming what had already been received was found in the statistical\nreports of the national and state governments. Some of the results of a\nstudy of the reports of the Ohio Bureau of Vital Statistics and the United\nStates Census are given in Table A and in Maps A, and Maps 1 to 10, on\npages 26 to 36.\n\nIn Map A the heavily shaded area indicates the Eighteen Counties included\nin this region. Ten other counties bordering upon them are shaded more\nlightly. Many communities in these ten bordering counties are influenced\nby the migration of population from the Eighteen Counties.\n\nIn no less than twelve out of the Eighteen Counties, the death rate from\ntuberculosis is excessive. (See Map 1 and Table A, column 1.) Reports of\nthe Ohio Bureau of Vital Statistics for the years 1909, 1910, and 1911\n(the latest we could secure on this subject), give the average annual\ndeaths from this disease for 100,000 persons, as 125 for the whole State.\nOn Map 1, all counties are shaded whose rate exceeds not 125 only, but\n145. Of the seventeen counties in the State whose death rate from\ntuberculosis is 145 or over, all but five are in this region, and of the\nfive one is a bordering county.\n\nOutside this area and the bordering counties, the highest rate is in\nFranklin, of which the city of Columbus is the county seat; but of the\nEighteen Counties, seven have a higher rate than Franklin. In Clermont\nCounty it is 164, in Scioto 169, in Lawrence 172, in Ross 175, in Gallia\n184, while in Pike it is no less than 216,--far larger than for any other\nrural county in the State. In Hamilton County, in which is the city of\nCincinnati, and which is adjacent to Clermont County, the rate of 217 is\nprobably due to the large colored population.\n\nIt will be observed, therefore, that in no less than two-thirds of the\nEighteen Counties the rate of death from this preventable disease is\nexcessively and indefensibly high.\n\nThe number of illegitimate births in the Eighteen Counties is likewise\nexcessive. (See Map 2 and Table A, column 2, pages 28 and 37.) The rate\nper 100,000 population for the State is 43.9. Of the 28 counties whose\nrate is above the average, 19, or 68 per cent, are either in the Eighteen\nCounties or the counties bordering upon them. No less than thirteen, or\nmore than two-thirds, of the Eighteen Counties have an excessive number of\nillegitimate births. Outside this area and the bordering counties the\nhighest rate for any county is 61, but in ten of the Eighteen Counties it\nis greater than this. Whereas the rate for the State is less than 44, in\nAthens County it is 65, in Noble 67, in Scioto 73, in Gallia 76, in\nHocking and Monroe 78, in Ross 87, in Pike 89, in Lawrence no less than\n113, while in Jackson it is 123, or the highest rate in the State.\n\nIt will be noted that these figures cover the counties in which are the\nlarge cities as well as the rural counties. But in Hamilton, containing\nthe city of Cincinnati, the rate is only 66, in Franklin, containing the\ncity of Columbus, it is 56, and in Cuyahoga, containing the city of\nCleveland, it is only 50.\n\nIlliteracy also, in the Eighteen Counties, is excessive. (See Map 3 and\ncolumn 3 of Table A.) The per cent of illiterate males of voting age for\nthe State in 1910 was 4.2. There are 29 counties in which that number was\nexceeded. Of these, fourteen are among the Eighteen Counties, and five\nborder upon them. In Brown County, the percentage is 4.3, in Washington\nand Noble 4.5, in Monroe 5.4, in Adams 6.9, in Athens and Ross 7.4, in\nScioto 7.7, in Gallia 8.1, in Vinton 8.4, in Hocking 8.6, while in Pike it\nis 10.7, and in Lawrence 11.6.\n\nAmong the remaining ten counties whose percentage of illiteracy is above\nthe average it appears (see Map 4, page 30) that in all but three, the\npercentage of foreign-born persons is large, and that among counties where\nthe foreign born are few, there are, outside the Eighteen Counties, only\nsix for which the percentage of illiteracy is greater than 4.2, and three\nof these are included in the counties which border upon them.\n\nIt will be noted that in this region the number of foreign-born persons is\nvery small. The percentage for the State is 12.5, whereas in the Eighteen\nCounties it is only 2.3. No less than 53 counties out of the 70 outside of\nthe Eighteen Counties, have a foreign population of more than 2.3 per\ncent.\n\nIn this region, therefore, where there is so high a percentage of\nilliteracy, of illegitimacy, and of deaths from preventable disease, the\npeople are more nearly pure Americans than in the rest of the State. They\ncompare unfavorably with the people of counties where a large proportion\nare foreigners. It is true that the cause does not lie in the origin of\nthe population. But the fact that these things are true in the most\nAmerican parts of Ohio, where we should naturally expect to find the best\nsituation, greatly emphasizes the significance of the conditions\ndisclosed.\n\nIt is an additional indictment against those who are responsible that in\nMahoning County more than 28 per cent and in Cuyahoga County more than 33\nper cent of the population in 1910 were foreign born, yet in these\ncounties, containing the large cities of Youngstown and Cleveland, the\nmoral and social conditions are better than in the Eighteen Counties--a\nrural section inhabited by our purest American stock.\n\nSuch statistical data as are here presented are but as smoke indicating\nfire. They do not overstate the urgency of the appeal from the unfortunate\nover-churched and under-ministered communities of this section. Here gross\nsuperstition exercises strong control over the thought and action of a\nlarge proportion of the people. Syphilitic and other venereal diseases are\ncommon and increasing over whole counties, while in some communities\nnearly every family is afflicted with inherited or infectious disease.\nMany cases of incest are known, inbreeding is rife. Imbeciles,\nfeeble-minded, and delinquents are numerous, politics is corrupt, the\nselling of votes is common, petty crimes abound, the schools have been\nbadly managed and poorly attended. Cases of rape, assault, and robbery are\nof almost weekly occurrence within five minutes' walk of the corporation\nlimits of one of the county seats, while in another county political\ncontrol is held by a self-confessed criminal. Alcoholic intemperence is\nexcessive. Gross immorality and its evil results are by no means confined\nto the hill districts, but are extreme also in the towns.\n\nAdams County was made notorious because in the 1910 election nearly 2,000\npersons were disenfranchised for selling their votes, and there is\nconvincing evidence that it does not stand alone. Of course there are many\ncommunities in this region where conditions are better, such as the area\nimmediately affected by the admirable and effective work of Rio Grande\nCollege. But there is just as little question that the general deplorable\ncondition of the Eighteen Counties, ascertained through the personal\ninvestigations of Mr. Gill, and confirmed by wide correspondence and the\nstatistical data here summarized, is true.\n\nThe bad economic, as distinguished from the moral, conditions in the\nEighteen Counties are largely due to sterility of soil, and to the fact\nthat many of its hillsides are too steep for profitable cultivation. It is\noften contended that economic conditions affect religion and morals, and\nthere is much truth in that contention. But it cannot be held that steep\nhillsides and sterile soil of themselves produce conditions such as are\nhere described. Merely to state such a proposition is to refute it. Moral\nand religious poverty must bear at least as much of the blame as poverty\nof the soil. (See Maps 8, 9, and 10, and Table A, columns 8 and 9.)\n\nThe total value of farm property falls below 15 million dollars in but 21\nof the 88 counties of Ohio. Of the 21, all but 6 are among the Eighteen\nCounties. (See Map 8, and Table A, column 8.) In Adams, Athens, and Monroe\nCounties, the value of farm property is only 10 million dollars each; in\nMorgan 9, in Meigs and Scioto 8, in Gallia 7, in Hocking and Pike 6, in\nJackson and Lawrence 5, and in Vinton only 4.\n\nAccording to the United States Census the value of farm property in Ohio\nincreased nearly 60 per cent from 1900 to 1910. There were only ten\ncounties in the State in which farm property had not increased more than\n25 per cent during that period. Eight of these are among the Eighteen\nCounties. (See Map 9, and Table A, column 9.)\n\nAccording to the Census of 1910, there were only 13 counties in Ohio whose\nland was valued at not more than $25.00 per acre. All of them are in the\nEighteen Counties. (See Map 10.) In the remaining five the land is valued\nat not more than $50.00 per acre. It becomes impossible, therefore, to\navoid the question whether the character of the soil determines the\ncharacter and destiny of the people who are born upon it.\n\nAttention should be directed in passing to the fact that the low value of\nthe land is due in part to the failure of the people who live upon it to\ndevelop and use the natural resources which are available. In some of the\npoorest regions in the Eighteen Counties an occasional farmer is making a\ngood living from the soil, although his land by nature is no better than\nthat of his poor neighbors. As a rule the agricultural opportunities of\nthe region are neglected. For example, little fruit is grown, although\nboth climate and soil in much of the region are very favorable to fruit\nproduction.\n\nBut it remains true that the natural conditions as a whole are not as\nfavorable for agriculture, as they are to the north and northwest; and it\nis an unquestionable fact that the character and condition of the earth's\nsurface has a relation to the physical, intellectual, social, and moral\nconditions of the people who live upon it. Undoubtedly this is as true in\nsoutheastern Ohio as it is elsewhere. Poor soil, as a rule, does not hold\nupon itself the most enterprising families so tenaciously as good soil,\nand for that reason we might fairly expect the people of these districts\nto have less vigor and less initiative. On such soil it is therefore more\ndifficult to sustain thriving churches, and so the moral and religious\nlife may be more prone to decline.\n\nBut soil conditions by themselves cannot demoralize a people. They can do\nso only where the church is failing to do its work. The natural conditions\nof soil and climate are by no means worse in the Eighteen Counties than in\nmany other areas where fairly good moral conditions are found. They are no\nworse than they were in the parish of John Frederick Oberlin, nor in many\nfairly prosperous New England communities of to-day. Even where moral,\neconomic, and other conditions are bad, communities usually respond\nquickly to the work of a well-equipped resident pastor, as the experience\nof home missionaries abundantly proves.\n\nIn the first parish served as pastor by Mr. Gill, the soil and the people\nwere very poor. The moral conditions, because of a church situation very\nsimilar to that of the neglected communities of southeastern Ohio, were\nbad. But the response to the work of a church which gave good service was\nall that could have been anticipated. Even the economic conditions were\nnotably improved as a result of the church's work, while the moral change\nin the community was striking, rapid, and enduring. Men familiar with home\nmissionary work regard such results as normal.\n\nWhere the conditions are as unfavorable as they are in the Eighteen\nCounties, it is unquestionably the duty of the church as a whole, and\nespecially of the churches of the prosperous districts, to assist the\nweaker churches not only with supervision and advice, but also by helping\nto provide well-trained and well-equipped ministers, thus guarding against\nthe ravages of an ignorant and untrained or unworthy and insincere\nministry.\n\nThe people of southeastern Ohio will undoubtedly be as responsive to good\nchurch work and as ready to follow good religious leadership as the people\nof similar regions elsewhere. Such work and leadership for many years, at\nleast, they have not had. (See the next chapter.) Their ecclesiastical and\nreligious conditions are such as afford no ground for expecting better\nsocial, moral, and physical conditions than those actually found to exist.\nSurely we cannot accept these conditions as inevitable until the church\nshall at least have made a serious effort to test the possibilities and\nlearn the results of carrying out a live and modern program.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE CHURCHES IN THE EIGHTEEN COUNTIES\n\n\nIn the Eighteen Counties of Southeastern Ohio some of the older and\nstronger denominations are well represented, as Table C shows. (See page\n39.) No less than 526, or more than one-third, of the total number of\nchurches are Methodist Episcopal. Nearly one-tenth are United Brethren in\nChrist, another tenth Baptist, one-fifteenth Christian, and one-fifteenth\nPresbyterian; while other powerful denominations are also present. It is\nevident that the failure of the churches in this area cannot be laid to\nthe weakness or poverty of the denominations represented, for they are for\nthe most part neither weak nor poor. Ohio, moreover, is a wealthy State,\nand its churches make large contributions for church work and church\nextension both in America and abroad.\n\nIt has been too commonly held in the past that missionary effort should\nconsist largely in organizing and building churches. We do not believe\nthat proposition is sound. In rural Ohio the worst moral and religious\nconditions are found where there are the largest number of churches in\nproportion to the number of inhabitants.\n\nIn 39 counties out of a total of 88 in the State, there is one country\nchurch for each 275 people or less. (See Map 5 and Table A, column 5.) Of\nthese 39 counties, 17 are among the Eighteen Counties under our special\nconsideration. Outside these Eighteen Counties and the counties contiguous\nto them, no county has an average of less than 228 persons to a church,\nbut it appears that Washington has one church for 226 persons, Monroe one\nfor 214, Pike one for 211, Gallia one for 197, Morgan one for 194, Jackson\none for 193, while Vinton has one for 182, and Meigs one church for 178.\nIn the rural sections of these Eighteen Counties there are 1,542 churches\nand 248 townships, or more than 6 churches to a township.\n\nWhile the fact that this region is more difficult to travel, because more\nhilly, than many other parts of the State might constitute a reason for\nhaving many churches, it certainly cannot be held that the bad moral and\nreligious conditions which exist are due to lack of a sufficient number of\nthem. Nor is support here to be found for the contention sometimes made\nthat religious work thrives best under competition.\n\nThe larger the number of churches in proportion to the population, the\nmore difficult it obviously becomes to secure, support, and retain\nresident pastors. In proportion to the number of churches, the Eighteen\nCounties have a comparatively small number of ministers. (See Map 6 and\nTable A, column 6.) In the State as a whole, about one-third, or 34 per\ncent, of the churches have resident ministers. In only three counties\noutside the Eighteen is it true that less than one-fourth of the churches\nhave them. These are Delaware, Coshocton, and Pickaway, and the latter is\none of the bordering counties. But in 13 of the Eighteen Counties less\nthan one-fourth of the churches have resident ministers. It will be noted\nthat less than one-fifth of the churches in Scioto, Pike, Lawrence, and\nMeigs Counties have resident ministers, one-sixth in Morgan County, and\nless than one-sixth in Jackson, Hocking, and Gallia.\n\nIn the Eighteen Counties the number of resident ministers in proportion to\nthe population, as well as in proportion to the number of churches, is\nsmall. (See Map 7 and Table A, column 7.) There are 24 counties in Ohio in\nwhich there are more than 1,000 persons for each resident minister, of\nwhich 13 are among the Eighteen Counties under consideration, and three\namong the bordering counties. Noble County has a resident minister to\nevery 1,240 persons, Gallia to every 1,396, Lawrence to every 1,450,\nPickaway to every 1,458, while Hocking has only one to 1,693, or nearly\n1,700 persons. Here, as in most rural sections, an absentee ministry is\nnecessarily ineffective. (See pages 50-51.)\n\nThe foregoing facts afford convincing evidence that the church in this\nregion is rendering poor service--how poor the reader may judge from the\nfollowing description of the religious and ecclesiastical conditions found\nby Mr. Gill in his personal investigation on the ground.\n\nFor the most part the farm people of these Eighteen Counties are very\nreligious. This is attested not merely by the large number of churches,\nbut also by the frequency of well-attended revival services, held in\nspring, summer, autumn, and winter. (In Pike County, for example, no less\nthan 1,500 revival services were held in thirty years, or an average of 50\neach year.) Yet a normal, wholesome religion, bearing as its fruit better\nliving and all-round human development, and cherished and propagated by\nsane and sober-minded people, is rarely known. The main function of a\nchurch, according to the popular conception, is to hold these protracted\nmeetings, to stir up religious emotion, and, under its influence, to bring\nto pass certain psychological experiences. The idea seems to be dominant\nin nearly all the denominations and churches that the presence of the\nDeity is made known mainly, if not solely, through states of intense\nemotion which may be stimulated in religious assemblies. Such emotion is\nheld to be not only a manifestation of the Deity's presence, but also a\nproof of His existence. No man is held to be religious or saved from evil\ndestiny unless he has had such experience. It becomes, therefore, the\nbusiness of the preacher of the church to create conditions favorable to\nthe experiencing of these emotions.\n\nOfficials of denominations to which more than two-thirds of the churches\nbelong encourage or permit the promotion of a religion of the excessively\nemotional type, which encourages rolling upon the floor by men, women, and\nchildren, and going into trances, while some things which have happened in\nthe regular services of a church in one of the largest denominations\ncannot properly be described in print. The leaders of a religious cult\ncommonly called Holy Rollers seem to be most efficient in this direction.\nThe character of their services and activities produce the results\ndesired, according to the traditions accepted and proclaimed for\ngenerations by ignorant preachers to a nonprogressive people.\n\nA Holy Roller movement was started in Pike County in the year 1902. It has\nsteadily been gaining ground ever since, and has never been more\nflourishing than now. It is the livest sect in this and neighboring\ncounties. Its meetings are large and full of enthusiasm. Except the\nchurches of this cult, very few are now left in the western half of Pike\nCounty which show any activity whatever. In one district of 150 square\nmiles (in which there are 1,200 children enrolled in the schools and in\nall 1,600 young people from the ages of six to twenty) no churches were\nholding services in 1917 except those of the Holy Rollers.\n\nThe seasons of protracted Holy Roller meetings often last for several\nweeks. Frequently they begin each day at 10.00 A. M. and continue until\n2.00 A. M. the next day, with intermissions for meals. These meetings are\ncharacterized by much singing, with music well adapted to rythmic motions\nof the body, by dancing and clapping the hands, sometimes by shouting and\njoyous screaming, rolling upon the floor, tumbling together of men and\nwomen in heaps, trances, while at least one of their preachers has\nexercised hypnotic power over some of his followers and has put them\nthrough stunts in no way differing from those of the professional\nhypnotist showman who, in times past, for the price of admission, has\namused and astonished his audience with exhibitions of his skill.\n\nIn one village where Mr. Gill attended a church belonging to this\nmovement, it was the only religious organization holding services or\nshowing any signs of life. Although at this service the building was full\nto its capacity, as is usual with meetings of this kind, the church not\nonly had no Sunday school, but its leaders kept the children away from one\nwhich a missionary of the American Sunday School Union was trying to start\nin the neighborhood. Three-fourths of the parents of the fifty pupils in\nthe local school were adherents of this cult, yet its leaders opposed\nhaving better day schools. The school principal, under the direction of\nthe County School Superintendent, tried to hold literary meetings for\nintellectual and social improvement, but under the influence of the Holy\nRoller leaders, the parents refused to let their children attend, and the\nenterprise was defeated. Apparently no meeting for any purpose is to be\ntolerated except the Holy Roller meetings themselves. These theoretically\nand in fact take the place of all other gatherings.\n\nThe Holy Roller church in this community, as elsewhere, in its total\ninfluence promotes immorality. It has a tendency to break up families and\ndestroy the peace and harmony of the neighborhood. In the judgment of the\nmore sober-minded people, the Holy Roller movement spoils the life of the\ncommunity wherever it goes.\n\nAlthough the Holy Roller cult apparently was not started in this region\nuntil a few years ago, it would seem that the religious activities of the\nolder denominational churches were but a good preparation for it. In fact,\ngood soil is found for sprouting the seed of Holy Rollerism in many\nsections of the State. The difference in religious beliefs and ideals\nbetween the Holy Rollers and the preachers of other denominations in the\nEighteen Counties too often is not easily detected. Denominations to which\nat least two-thirds of the churches belong employ many men and women as\npreachers who are extremely ignorant.\n\nIn one of its districts, nearly half of the twenty or thirty ministers of\nthe largest denomination in the State did not have a common school\neducation. It is usual to find ministers intellectually inferior to a\nnumber of families whom they are supposed to lead and teach. In some\ndistricts a considerable proportion of the preachers have had no more than\nthree or four grades of common school instruction. Some cannot write their\nown names correctly. Accordingly religious education is neglected. The\npeople apparently have been untouched by the general advance in religious\nknowledge during the past century.\n\nMany intelligent people in the Eighteen Counties deplore these conditions\nand would be glad to have churches of a different type. But it is also\nvery common to find among the more prosperous, especially in the fertile\nriver valleys, a spirit of utter indifference towards religion, and often\nof gross materialism. Under such circumstances it is not surprising to\nfind that in several sections much hostility to institutional religion\nexists. It is given expression by rural hoodlums who cut to pieces\nharnesses and slash tires belonging to ministers or laymen who attend\nreligious gatherings, while in some communities stones are thrown through\nthe windows of buildings where public worship is being held.\n\nWhile it is true that out of the poorest and most unfortunate districts\nbright boys and girls frequently emerge, escape their surroundings, and\nbecome good citizens, it is none the less true that a large proportion of\nthose who remain have no reasonable chance for wholesome development.\n\nThe bad influence of the Eighteen Counties extends far beyond their\nborders. Out of them many farm laborers have gone to communities to the\nnorth and northwest, often with deplorable results to the social,\nreligious, and moral conditions of the communities where they are\nemployed. (See Table B.) It is calculated that no less than 61,000 persons\nemigrated in the ten-year period from 1900 to 1910 from the strictly rural\ndistricts of _sixteen_ of the Eighteen Counties.\n\nIn Madison, a fertile county near the center of the State, in an area\nsixteen miles long and from seven to eleven miles wide, there are three\nclosed and no active churches. One of the causes of this condition is the\nfact that the farm laborers imported by the owners of large tracts of\nlands were never made familiar, before they came, with a normal type of\nreligion. These men come from the Eighteen Counties or from sections\nacross the Ohio River where the conditions are very much the same. In\nparts of several other counties the situation brought about by similar\nimmigration is extremely bad.\n\nThe Eighteen Counties demand missionary activity on the part of the church\nas a whole, not only for the sake of the unfortunate people who live in\nthem, but also for the sake of the other regions whose welfare is\nthreatened by the transfer of low standards of all kinds, which, like a\nforest fire, are creeping away from the region where they originated.\n\nAmong the large number of intelligent persons who know and deplore the\nsituation in typical communities of southeastern Ohio, very few seem to\ncherish hope of improvement. Such pessimism appears to be unjustified.\nGood work is now being done by missionaries of the American Sunday School\nUnion. What is more important, there is much promise that the trouble can\nbe reached and cured by the modern country church movement, which is\nalready making real progress in Ohio. As a result of this movement, for\nexample, the Board of Home Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church has,\nfor the first time, appropriated missionary funds to be used in this\nsection, while one of the District Superintendents of the same\ndenomination is carrying out a radically changed program for the churches\nunder his supervision.\n\n\n[Illustration: MAP A WHERE CONDITIONS DEMAND MISSIONARY AID]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 1 HIGH DEATH RATES FROM TUBERCULOSIS]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 2 HIGH RATES OF ILLEGITIMACY]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 3 WHERE ILLITERACY ABOUNDS]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 4 DISTRIBUTION OF FOREIGN BORN WHITES]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 5 EXCESSIVE OVER-CHURCHING]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 6 CHURCHES MANY BUT MINISTERS FEW]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 7 NUMBER OF PERSONS TO A RESIDENT MINISTER]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 8 VALUE OF FARM PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1910]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 9 INCREASE IN VALUE OF FARM PROPERTY]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 10 RICH LAND AND POOR LAND]\n\n\nTABLE A\n\nSHOWING THAT IN A GROUP OF 18 COUNTIES IN SOUTHEASTERN OHIO THERE IS AN\nEXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF PREVENTABLE DISEASE AND ILLITERACY, AN EXCESSIVE\nNUMBER OF ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS, EXCESSIVE OVERCHURCHING, A VERY SMALL\nNUMBER OF RESIDENT MINISTERS IN PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF CHURCHES AND\nNUMBER OF PEOPLE, THAT AS COMPARED WITH OTHER SECTIONS THE TOTAL VALUE OF\nFARM PROPERTY IS SMALL AND THE INCREASE IN VALUE SLIGHT\n\n Key:\n 1 _Average annual rate of deaths from tuberculosis of the lungs per\n 100,000 persons, 1909, 1910, 1911_\n 2 _Average annual rate per 100,000 population of illegitimate births\n for 1909, 1910_\n 3 _Per cent of illiterate males of voting age, 1910_\n 4 _Per cent of total population who were foreign born white, 1910_\n 5 _Number of persons to a church_\n 6 _Per cent of churches which have resident ministers_\n 7 _Number of persons to each resident minister_\n 8 _Number of millions of dollars at which farm property is valued_\n 9 _Per cent increase in value of farm property 1900-1910_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9\n For State,\n 88 counties 125 43.9 4.2 12.5 279 34 825 59\n Adams 147 6.9 0.5 266 1031 10 16\n Athens 155 65 7.4 5.3 229 21 1086 10 16\n Brown 193 4.3 1.9 1129 15\n Clermont 164 249 14\n Gallia 184 76 8.1 1.2 197 14 1396 7 13\n Highland 145 252\n Hocking 78 8.6 3.5 235 14 1693 6\n Jackson 147 123 9.5 2 193 16 1222 5\n Lawrence 172 113 11.6 1.8 267 18 1450 5 19\n Meigs 158 178 18 1010 8\n Monroe 78 5.4 2.4 214 24 10 19\n Morgan 50 194 17 1150 9 25\n Noble 67 4.5 3.2 248 20 1240 11\n Pike 216 89 10.7 1.4 211 18 1209 6\n Ross 175 87 7.4 2.2 252\n Scioto 169 73 7.7 3 233 19 1211 8\n Vinton 49 8.4 .8 182 22 4 12\n Washington 58 4.5 2.5 226 21 1087 14 25\n --------------------------------------------------------------------\n Average for 18 counties 2.3\n --------------------------------------------------------------------\n Belmont 55 7.1 15.1 1107\n Clinton\n Fairfield 222\n Fayette 55 6.2 .7 257 1234\n Guernsey 55 7.8 9.2 269 13\n Hamilton 217 66 14.3\n Muskingum 48 224\n Perry 4.6 7.3 9\n Pickaway 130 61 5.7 1.8 22 1458\n Warren 271\n\n\nTABLE B\n\nSHOWING CALCULATED NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO MIGRATED FROM THE RURAL DISTRICTS\nOF SIXTEEN COUNTIES IN SOUTHEASTERN OHIO 1900-1910\n\n Key:\n 1 _Population of strictly rural townships, 1910_\n 2 _Excess of birth rate over death rate_\n 3 _Population of strictly rural townships, 1900_\n 4 _Calculated total population in 1910 had there been no migration_\n 5 _Calculated no. persons who migrated 1900-1910_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5\n Total 61,418\n Adams 24,775 12.15 26,328 29,432 4,677\n Brown 24,832 4.93 28,237 30,241 5,409\n Clermont 29,551 3.81 31,610 33,377 3,826\n Gallia 19,546 2.73 20,973 21,527 1,981\n Highland 17,382 4.22 19,504 20,283 2,901\n Hocking 16,934 12.72 19,183 21,380 4,446\n Jackson 10,996 12.47 12,009 13,444 2,448\n Lawrence 23,202 14.83 24,644 28,192 4,990\n Meigs 16,162 1.96 18,961 19,306 3,144\n Monroe 19,940 13.73 23,373 26,347 6,407\n Morgan 16,097 8.07 17,905 20,777 4,680\n Noble 18,601 11.28 19,466 21,613 3,012\n Pike 15,723 11.48 18,172 20,118 4,395\n Ross 22,460 5.6 25,758 25,893 3,433\n Vinton 13,096 9.4 15,330 15,464 2,368\n Washington 29,409 7.4 32,481 32,710 3,301\n\n\nTABLE C\n\nDENOMINATIONS OF THE CHURCHES IN EIGHTEEN COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN OHIO\n\n Key:\n 1 _Churches in 248 strictly rural townships_\n 2 _Other rural churches_\n 3 _All rural churches_\n\n 1 2 3\n Total 1,542 593 2,135\n Methodist Episcopal 526 216 742\n United Brethren 138 43 181\n Baptist 124 26 150\n Christian 97 13 110\n Presbyterian 96 40 136\n Disciples 87 39 126\n Methodist Protestant 63 25 88\n Christian Union 46 5 51\n Catholic 43 22 65\n Non-Progressive Disciples 28 3 31\n Radical United Brethren 26 4 30\n Lutheran 21 28 49\n Congregational 17 1 18\n Reformed 14 16 30\n German Evangelical 14 1 15\n United Presbyterian 10 23 33\n Friends 10 21 31\n All others 182 67 249\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nA POLICY AND PROGRAM\n\n\nThe roots of the religious and moral life of the Nation are chiefly in the\ncountry church. As in southeastern Ohio, so in any area where the church\nfails, degeneracy begins. The low and sordid moral atmosphere found in so\nmany rural villages and communities, not only among the Eighteen Counties,\nbut throughout the State (and far beyond the boundaries of Ohio) is\naltogether unnecessary. It constitutes a challenge to the church which can\nno longer go unheeded. Obviously, whatever reforms in methods and policies\nmay be required to enable it efficiently to perform its task must be made.\n\n\n(1) _A Better Program_\n\nOne of the chief underlying causes of the present condition of the\nchurches is an imperfect conception of their function. We recognize the\nfact that the effective proclaiming of the Gospel is the essential if not\nthe greatest and most important task of the churches, but the impression\nis still very widespread in the Ohio churches that to preach it from\npulpit and platform is almost their only task. That this is not enough to\nbring the churches to their full effectiveness has been conclusively\nproved by the experience of foreign missionaries during the past hundred\nyears. In proportion to the number of their missionaries, the missionary\nsocieties which have believed that proclaiming the Christian message is\nthe only function of the church, have not made as many converts nor built\nup as strong churches as those which engage also in the work of healing\nthe sick and teaching. The most successful missionary organizations teach\nnot only Christian life and theology, but all that makes for what is best\nin our Christian civilization.\n\nThe welfare of a man's soul may be increased by promoting the welfare of\nthe rest of him, and the aim of the church should be to bring every man to\nthe highest possible development of all his powers. In seeking to do so it\nwill not only be more effective in creating a higher manhood and\nwomanhood, but will also make its message better understood and secure a\ngreater number of church members and adherents.\n\nFor our city churches also this is as true as for the foreign missionary\nfield, although perhaps less obviously so. The equipment of so large a\nnumber of modern city churches for various forms of social service is a\nstrong indication that those who control their policies recognize the\nnecessity of a more diversified field of work.\n\nThe success and growth of the Y. M. C. A. is another indication of the\ntruth for which we are contending. This institution which is a branch or\narm of the Christian church has declared its aim to be the development of\n\"soul, mind, and body.\" As a result of this policy it is now engaged in\nmany kinds of work which should also be done more widely and generally and\nso on a greater scale throughout the church. It receives large\ncontributions of money from members of the churches, and it rightly\nundertakes and successfully carries out large enterprises where other\nchurch organizations fail to see their duties and opportunities and lag\nbehind or remain idle.\n\nStill another reason for believing in a larger function and mission of the\nchurch is found in the fact that every strikingly successful country\nchurch is found to be deeply concerned with the needs of the community,\nand is carrying out a broad and comprehensive program of service. This is\ntrue not only in the State of Ohio, but throughout the Nation.\n\nFinally and conclusively, it may be added that the broader program was\ninstituted and carried out by the Founder of the Christian religion, and\nwas by Him enjoined upon His followers.\n\nWhat the new program for the local country church should be is no longer\na matter of conjecture. Country ministers in very many widely separated\nparishes of the United States have worked it out independently in trying\nto meet the needs of their communities, and have everywhere reached\nsubstantially the same conclusion. The program is essentially the same in\nall places where the most successful country church work is done. It has\nfound an embodiment in the mass of country church literature which has\nbeen published during the past eight years, and it has been studied,\ntried, and proved to meet the need of large numbers of country pastors in\nOhio and in many of the other States. How it has been carried out in some\nOhio parishes is described in Chapter VIII, pages 75-87.\n\n\n(2) _A Better Ministry_\n\nTo carry out the better program for the local country church requires an\neducated ministry. Ohio has suffered greatly from ministerial quackery.\nVery imperfectly equipped ministers, such as are found in nearly every\ncounty of the State, and unsound ignorant men, such as are so common in\nthe Eighteen Counties, cannot meet the requirements of the new program.\nDoubtless the educational requirements of the discipline of many of the\ndenominations are set too low, but even so, if the rules of the discipline\nwere strictly obeyed, a large proportion of the present ministers would be\neliminated. The new program requires trained men.\n\nTo get better men, better opportunity and better pay must be supplied.\nFields of service must be created large enough, yet sufficiently compact\nand free from competing rivals, to make good work possible. The farmers\nmust be convinced that better support of the ministry is essential, in\ntheir own interest. At the same time the best young men of the churches\nmust be assured that the new program offers a field so promising as to\nmake it worth their while to enter the ministry. The churches are wise\nenough and strong enough to do all this if they will address themselves to\nthe situation and take it seriously.\n\n\n(3) _Better Support_\n\nIn a large part of Ohio the farmers are able and ready to multiply the\namount of money they now contribute for the support of the churches. When\nit is made clear to them that better pay will bring a better minister,\nincreased support will cheerfully be given. But the farmers will not give\nmore money either for the support of an inferior minister, or to carry out\nthe old program. They will demand their money's worth, and this the\npresent methods do not, in general, supply. The increased prosperity and\nconsequent ability of the farmers to support the church more liberally is\nindicated by the fact that the total value of farm property in Ohio\nincreased nearly 60 per cent during the ten-year period from 1900 to 1910.\n\nBut it must be remembered that increased support will not be given by the\nfarmers unless the need for it, and what it will bring, is brought\nforcefully to their attention. This the individual minister cannot do, for\nto attempt it lays him open to the charge of feathering his own nest. It\nshould be done by a State Federation of Churches or by such organizations\nas The Ohio Rural Life Association, acting through its own institutes and\nthe farmers' institutes, through the circulation of its literature, and\nthrough the formation of organizations for this purpose in the churches of\nthe different counties. No matter how good work a minister may do,\nordinarily he will not be adequately supported unless some special agency\ndoes this work.\n\n\n(4) _Better Acquaintance_\n\nThe present system of circuits entails upon the country minister an\nenormous waste of time. If a man tries to do the pastoral work which is\nstrictly necessary, he must spend a very large proportion of his working\nhours in driving to the widely separated points of his various parishes,\ncrossing and recrossing as he goes the lines of travel of other ministers\nengaged in the same territory upon the same work. That the country\nminister should be called upon to waste so large a part of his life in\nthis way is shameful because it is bad and inefficient organization, and\ncarries with it an utterly needless loss.\n\nTo understand the significance of pastoral calling in a rural community it\nmust be remembered that isolation is as characteristic of the country as\ncongestion is of the cities. A large proportion of rural families look\nupon a minister who calls frequently as a personal asset of great value.\nHe supplies opportunities not otherwise available for the discussion of\nmatters of general interest or of deep personal concern. He calls\nattention to the things otherwise forgotten, and brings, or should bring\nwith him, the inestimable advantage of intimate contact with a wise and\nwell-trained mind. Moreover, a man full of good will to all going from\nhouse to house, sympathetically trying to help and understand, will\ninevitably modify the uncharitable and unjust public opinion which either\nexists or is believed to exist in most rural communities.\n\nEqually effective are the incidental contacts of a minister engaged in\ncommunity service, such as work with boys, or the promotion of welfare\nenterprises. Thus engaged he will inevitably get in touch with his\nparishioners, and supply the needs of individuals and of the community, at\nleast as fully as the minister who devotes most of his working hours to\npastoral calls. In such work less time is spent in the long drives or\nwalks between houses which are necessary in systematic calling, while the\nminister gets to know the men better and bothers them less.\n\nWithout pastoral calling and community welfare work, the country\nminister's service is sure to be ineffective. But as a matter of fact the\ncountry ministers of Ohio for the most part do very little of either. The\ncountry people as a rule, receive very few pastoral calls, according to\nthe almost universal testimony of the country ministers themselves as well\nas that of other persons who live in the country. In Delaware County, for\nexample, a prosperous county in the center of the State, there is an area\nof 82 square miles, with more than 2,100 people, in which only one\nminister makes any pastoral calls, and he makes very few. Half the\ntownships of this county have no resident ministers.\n\nMr. Gill found one township in the north-central section of the State in\nwhich the farmers' families probably had not been called on once in five\nyears. One woman had not received a call from a minister in twelve years.\nWhen finally called upon she became a regular and happy church attendant,\nthough she had not been to church since her childhood. Another family was\nfound in the same region whose house no minister had entered for nineteen\nyears. In an Ohio River township, the members of a family testified that a\nminister had not called on them for twenty-five years, and still others\nasserted that no minister had ever entered their homes. From the reports\nof eighteen pastors in one denominational district it appeared that on an\naverage each one made only six calls a year upon non-church members,\nalthough these were more than 60 per cent of the people. \"Our minister\ndoes not know the people of this community\" is common testimony everywhere\nin the country parishes.\n\nThe country minister's influence is still further reduced because his term\nof service is short--usually but a year or two, rarely three years.\nMoreover, his efforts are commonly divided among several communities and\nthus are spread too thin to produce results. Add to that the fact that in\neach community the people whom he serves are intermingled with the\nparishioners of ministers of other denominations. Under these\ncircumstances how can he become efficient in community service, and how\ncan he get to know the people of his charge? Ordinarily he does not even\nattempt it. Under present conditions the country minister who does,\ngenerally accomplishes little and wears himself into discouragement.\n\n\n(5) _Rearrangement of Circuits_\n\nThe old circuit system under which many of the denominations developed\ntheir work and which is now the system employed in nearly all the larger\ndenominations in the State, was of undoubted value in the beginning of\ntheir work in pioneer days. But like many other efficient methods of\nearly times it has ceased to be the best method for present needs, in the\nform in which we now find it at work. This is true except in a few\ninstances where it appears in such a modified form as to be adaptable to\npresent conditions.\n\nUnder the circuit system it has often been accepted as a policy by church\nofficials that every church must have a minister and every minister a\nchurch. The advantages accruing both to the churches and ministers from a\nreasonably cautious and not too consistent application of such a rule are\nobvious. But failure to use such caution and too great insistence on its\nuniversal application too often have resulted in the employment of\nunequipped and uneducated ministers and sometimes even of men whose\ncharacter was questionable, which in turn, has helped to bring about a low\nstandard of pay for the minister. The pay of the skilled has fallen to\nthat of the unskilled, and the total result has been to cheapen the\nministry. The standard among farmers for the support of both church and\nminister, therefore, has fallen low. We must have a greatly modified\nsystem or a better system before the ministry can be better paid.\n\nUnder the circuit system as now applied in Ohio the churches too often\nprovide for but little else than preaching. Even the Sunday school, one of\nthe most hopeful and valuable kinds of church work, is hampered by it, for\nthis work needs the leadership of a trained ministry, which the present\ncircuit system tends to prevent. The minister with a circuit can rarely\nattend the services of his Sunday schools, and the task of promoting the\nSunday school work during the week in the several communities of his\ncharge is usually too arduous for him.\n\nIn times past it has been held commendable for a denomination to establish\none of its churches in every community, regardless of the number of\nchurches already there. By making use of the present circuit system, it\nhas been possible to establish and after a fashion to maintain a church\nalmost anywhere. Hence the present unfortunate multiplication of churches.\n\nWhen rural communities are overchurched, as under the working of this\nplan in Ohio most of them are, competition between them necessarily\nresults not in the survival of the fit, but in the continued existence of\nan excessive number of bloodless, moribund churches, whose energies are\nalmost entirely exhausted in the mere effort to keep alive.\n\nWhen the circuit system is adopted by more than one competing denomination\nin a field as it is in Ohio it helps to perpetuate interchurch\ncompetition. When one adopts it all others must, or retire from the field.\nIt cannot be held that the resulting competition helps to make more\nChristians, or that it tends to develop character or community life. On\nthe contrary, it reduces both the power of the church as a whole and the\ninfluence of the individual churches for personal righteousness and\ncommunity welfare. Then, as the churches under the competitive system grow\nweaker, they must be yoked in larger circuits. So far has the practice\ngone that in one circuit in Ohio there are actually ten churches.\n\nA variation of this system is found in certain Holy Roller churches where\nan undefined number of churches together depend for their leadership on a\ngroup of itinerant revivalists. Frequent or occasional seasons of revival\nservices often constitute the sole activity of these churches, yet because\nof the weakness of the latter they are succeeding or have succeeded in\ncrowding out many churches of the older denominations. There is a clear\ninstance of this in the western half of Pike County, where nearly all the\nchurches are abandoned excepting those of the Holy Rollers--a striking\nexample of reverse selection or the survival of the unfit.\n\nThe movement for the conservation and improvement of rural life has no\ngreater enemy than the misused circuit system. Not only does it weaken the\nchurches, but it necessarily discourages the development of the community\nand of community life. With his efforts divided among three or more\ndifferent communities, his parishioners mingled with members of competing\nchurches, the country minister cannot hope for the cooperation necessary\nto effective leadership. His success in any work for the community,\nbecause it would add prestige to his church, as a rule is not desired by\nthe members of other denominations. The entire circuit situation as it\nworks to-day in the region here under investigation whatever may be its\nvalue elsewhere tends to make the modern program of successful churches\nentirely impracticable.\n\nEscape from the deadening environment of the country church circuit is the\nardent desire of most country ministers who have had any reasonable degree\nof equipment for their vocation, and self-improvement as a preacher seems\nto be the only way out. The circuit minister of such equipment naturally\nregards his present work as temporary. He looks forward to leaving the\ncountry through promotion to a town church. The city, where he hopes to\nbe, and not the country, where he is, becomes for him the only field for\nsuccess in the ministry.\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that country parishes to be successful must be\nmore compact. As a substitute for the circuit, churches in a small\ncommunity where there are too many should be united in the support of one\nresident minister. If they cannot support him, then other adjacent\nchurches should join with them in a federated circuit under a single\npastor. Such is the right use of the circuit in the country.\n\nThe territory thus placed under one minister may be so large as to make it\ndesirable to employ a paid assistant to the pastor. Freed from the\nnecessity of long drives to other communities, the pastor can make many\ncalls nearer home. Community enterprises, under this system made possible,\nwill bring the pastor into personal touch with the people. He will become\ntheir friend and they will wish him a long term of service among them. And\nonly when a minister has been two or three years in a community can he\nbegin to render his most effective service. The enlarged and unified\nparish, such as that of Benzonia, Michigan, or Hanover, New Jersey, should\nbe carefully distinguished from the misused circuit, which now plays so\nsignificant a part in the church life of Ohio. Parishes like these afford\nall the benefits of the circuit with none of its defects.\n\n\n[Illustration: MAP 11 SHOWING THAT IN 317 OR 27 PER CENT OF THE STRICTLY\nRURAL TOWNSHIPS NO CHURCH HAS A RESIDENT MINISTER]\n\n\n(6) _More Resident Ministers_\n\nWhile the preaching of a good pastor is an indispensable factor in the\nindividual development of his parishioners and in the progress of\ncommunity life, that of the non-resident is by comparison of little value.\nIt is shooting in the air without seeing the target, like the fire of\nartillery without the aid of air scouts. There is no greater force for\nrighteousness in a country community than a church with a resident\nminister, well educated, well equipped, wisely selected, whose term of\nservice is not too short. The church is the only institution which can\nhope to employ a man of this type to give his whole time, as a minister\ncan, to the service of his community.\n\nThe right kind of resident minister will have a strong and intelligent\ndesire to secure opportunities for the best development of his children\nand to create a favorable environment for them. He will therefore take a\nkeen interest in the schools, in the establishing of libraries, in play\nand social life, in keeping out evil influences and promoting general\ndecency. He may fairly expect to see the fruits of his labor, and will be\nall the more likely on that account to become interested in the economic\nbetterment of the community. Such a man will stimulate it and help it to\nmake use of all available means to further the general welfare. A church\nwith such a pastor is community insurance against degeneracy and decay.\n\nOne of the most striking examples of the service of a resident minister\nduring a long pastorate is found in the life of the well-known John\nFrederick Oberlin, a free biography of whom has recently been made\navailable to all country ministers. Large numbers of modern examples may\nalso readily be found. One is given on pages 77-80 of this report.\n\nThere are few more deplorable wastes than that of the church in the use of\nits rural ministry. This waste alone is enough to account for much of the\ndecline in country life, because under the present system only a small\nfraction of the normal influence of the ministry can be exerted. And it\nis a needless waste, for it is fully within the power of the churches\nthrough their officials to correct it. The minister must be given a field\nof such a character that it is possible for him to do his work, and he\nmust be given that adequate support which proper church administration can\nmost assuredly secure for him. Only when these readjustments have been\nmade will it be fair and right to appeal to the young men of education and\nability to enter the rural ministry, and stay in it.\n\nThe thing can be done. We have in mind a rural township with less than\n2,000 inhabitants, lying in a hill country, which has six resident\nministers in its five villages, while the term of service of the minister\nof each of the parishes is nearly always long. To establish at least one\nresident minister in every township is not too high an aim. The people can\nand should be brought to understand that the value of a successful\nminister rises in increasing proportion with his knowledge of the\ncommunity and the length of his service.\n\n\n(7) _Interchurch Cooperation_\n\nTo substitute cooperation for competition is an essential condition of\nrural church progress, at least in Ohio. Whenever the new program is\nadopted by a community it will discover that interchurch competition is\nhostile to community prosperity. Many rural communities already know that\ninterchurch cooperation is desirable. But the great question is how to\nsecure it. Nearly every community is aware that it has too many churches,\nbut the task of reducing the number or securing interchurch comity is a\nproblem beset with difficulties. These difficulties, however, are by no\nmeans insuperable. Many communities have already found ways to overcome\nthem.\n\nIn every community which really requires more than one church or pastor,\nthere should be a federation of churches; that is, a joint committee of\npastors and delegates officially appointed by the several churches to\nlearn and meet the needs, religious, or social, which require concerted\naction. While such federations, which are carefully to be distinguished\nfrom federated churches, are common in our cities, comparatively few are\nfound in the country. One of these is in Shiloh, Ohio, a description of\nwhich may be found on page 75. There appear to be no very great\ndifficulties in the way of bringing such federations about.\n\nIn communities whose compactness permits, and whose population and\nresources require, that there should be only one congregation and pastor,\nbut where two or more churches already exist, the churches clearly should\neither be united organically in a single denominational church, or a\nfederated church should be formed. Descriptions of federated churches may\nbe found on pages 59-69.\n\nIn a township or community where population and resources are inadequate\nto support more than one pastor, but where the population is so\ndistributed that more than one place of worship and organized church are\nrequired, a federated circuit may well be formed and a common pastor be\nemployed. In such case the several churches should be officially\nrepresented by a joint committee which would act for the circuit not only\nin employing the common pastor, but also in learning and meeting all the\nreligious and social needs which require concerted church action.\n\nIn securing pastors and in other matters where assistance is needed, the\nlocal federated churches and federated circuits should be aided by the\nState Federation of Churches if there is one, and if not by such bodies as\nthe Committee of Interchurch Cooperation of the Ohio Rural Life\nAssociation. Both Federation and Association are necessary for other\npurposes, and therefore no ground whatever exists for the objection\nsometimes made that federated churches will require the formation of new\norganizations to supervise them.\n\nWhile it is true that an uneducated minister ordinarily cannot satisfy the\npeople of various denominations, and that usually he is sectarian in his\nthinking and point of view, it is equally true that where a well-educated\nman is pastor, the needs of the people of various denominations can easily\nbe met and church unity be made possible.\n\n\n(8) _Community Churches_\n\nThe most successful rural church is the community church. Its members work\nchiefly not for the church itself, but for the community. Its ambition is\nto serve every person in its neighborhood, to create an environment\nfavorable to the highest possible development of every person in the\nneighborhood, and to stimulate other organizations and persons to serve\nthe community in every possible way. It is conceivable that there might be\nmore than one such church in a neighborhood, but in this discussion it is\nassumed that a community church is the only church in the community, for\nby far the larger number of rural communities in Ohio should have but one\nchurch. Since, on an average, there are five churches in a township and\nonly 1,448 persons, the formation of community churches is evidently both\nadvisable and important.\n\nThe community church may be a denominational church or a federated church.\nIt is the judgment of most of the denominational officials who are members\nof the Committee of Interchurch Cooperation of the Ohio Rural Life\nAssociation that wherever possible churches should be united in one\ndenominational church through the reciprocal exchange and elimination of\nsmall churches by the denominational organizations. In such an exchange\nchurch members of denomination A would unite with the church of\ndenomination B in community M, while members of denomination B would unite\nwith the church of denomination A in community N, and so on. A number of\nsuch exchanges have been made, and so far as can be learned, they have\nworked well. But the members of the small churches frequently refuse to\ncarry out this plan. They often care more for their local church than for\ntheir denomination, and are not willing that their own church organization\nshould be destroyed. While such exchanges will doubtless continue to be\nmade from time to time, it is unlikely that rapid progress will be\nachieved by this method alone.\n\nOn the other hand, the members of a local community are usually ready to\nform a federated church when they understand it. This has been done in\nNorthfield, Aurora, Wayland, Olmstead Falls, Milford Centre and\nHuntington, in Greene Township, Trumbull County, and in many other\ncommunities. A description of some of them may be found on pages 60-69. If\nthe officials and superintendents of the church should become as favorable\nto the formation of federated churches as they are to exchange between\ndenominations, and should actively further the movement, they could\nwithout question bring about the unification of the churches in very large\nnumbers of communities which stand greatly in need of it.\n\nHere then we have two possible methods of uniting the Christian people in\nthe rural communities. One of them--denominational exchange--is favored by\nthe officials but often opposed by the people in the churches. The\nother--the federated church--is favored by the people in the churches and\nopposed by many of the officials.\n\nIt is our contention that in the majority of cases the method preferred by\nthe people is more desirable than that preferred by the officials. For a\nman to leave his own denomination and unite with another often involves\naction against the conscience. In some of the denominations, for example,\nthe members have been trained to think it undesirable to subscribe to a\ncreed. But creed subscription is required by the churches of many of the\ndenominations as a condition of membership. In such cases the church\nofficials may properly hesitate to urge a part of the people to do what\nthey believe is not right.\n\nAnother reason which often makes it impossible for the church member of\none denomination to unite with the church of another is a temperamental\ndistaste for the idea of submission to some special system of discipline.\nTo all Protestants this is clear so far as the Catholic Church is\nconcerned. To many it is just as clear in relation to some of the\nProtestant bodies.\n\nThe official objections to the formation of federated churches involve no\nquestions of moral principle, but merely those of expediency and the\nsmooth running of existing ecclesiastical machinery. It is held by\ncertain officials that the federated church tends to promote autonomy in\nthe local congregations, and that it will impair the authority of the\ndenomination. But this increase of autonomy has already taken place in the\ncity churches, which, as a matter of practice, whatever the denominational\ntheory may be, manage their own affairs. There is here no loss to the\ndenomination, nor is there likely to be when the country churches are\nstrengthened by federation.\n\nIn the long run the officials who now entertain objections to the\nfederated church will doubtless not permit them to stand in the way of\nrural church progress. Particularly will this be true when a minister of\ntheir own denomination is to be made pastor of the federated church. It\nwould seem wise, therefore, for the denominational authorities to agree\nthat when federated churches are formed the choice of pastors should be\nmade, so far as possible, on the basis of interdenominational reciprocity.\n\nIn view of the urgent needs of the rural communities, as a rule, those\nmethods should be adopted which are most acceptable to the local people\nwhose interests are involved. When the people of a community come to\ndesire united Christian action in promoting community welfare, their zeal\nwill usually be strong enough to overcome the difficulties in the way. But\nthis desirable consummation is greatly retarded where opposition is made\nby the denomination or its officials. Until the church officials and\ndenominations are able to propose some other practicable plan for the\nreadjustment of church life to community welfare, a plan which can be\ncarried out, the demands of the situation certainly require them to help\nrather than hinder the movement for the formation of federated churches.\nIn any event they will not be able to stop it.\n\nIn the investigation striking cases were found of denominational officials\nopposing Christian unity in the mistaken belief that they were acting in\naccord with the sentiment of their denominations.\n\nIt has been reported to us that a certain denominational official has\ntried in ten different communities to prevent interchurch cooperation,\nalthough the local churches and the local people were for it. It might in\ncharity be contended that in nine of these it was not Christian\ncooperation itself that was opposed, but rather the form of cooperation\nembodied in a federated church. But in the tenth community it was clearly\nChristian cooperation and not the form of it to which this official was\nhostile, for the people of the two local churches were merely meeting\ntogether, in union services on Sunday evenings, and for an occasional\ncommunion service. No federation or organic union was contemplated. But\nthe old minister was removed, and a new minister was sent to the field\nwith definite instructions to break up what unity there was. These\ninstructions he carried out so thoroughly that the Christian forces in the\ncommunity were greatly reduced in effectiveness.\n\nIn another community an official persistently tried to prevent the\nformation of a federated church, although himself acknowledging that he\nsincerely believed it was the very best thing that could be done for the\nlocal people. From two other communities it was reported that this same\nofficial was the only obstacle in the way of Christian unity. It is\nentirely probable that in many other communities these denominational\nofficials have opposed Christian cooperation, for only incidentally did\nthe authors hear of the cases reported.\n\n\n(9) _Nonsectarian Support_\n\nTo give strength to the movement for interchurch cooperation, a strong\ninterdenominational or undenominational backing is needed. On the part of\nthe higher leaders and officials there is no lack of genuine desire to\nfurther interchurch cooperation. The same desire is shared by very large\nnumbers of the younger ministers who are properly trained for their\ncalling, and by many older ministers also. The movement, however, is often\nhalted because of a feeling that somewhere in the denomination there is a\nstrong sentiment against it.\n\nFaintheartedness is the greatest obstacle to cooperation between churches\nat the present time. Numbers of actual instances could be given if it\nwere proper to do so. What is needed, therefore, is an active movement\nbetween or outside of the denominations, to strengthen those officials who\nhesitate to promote interchurch cooperation. Such a movement would finally\nreveal the fact that the prevailing sentiment in the denominations is\nreally in favor of cooperation and not against it, and many who now oppose\nit or refuse to help would become most valuable agents in promoting it.\n\nIt must not be assumed that the day of denominations is past. Although, as\nbetween most of the denominations, theological differences no longer\nexist, and other differences between many of them are small,\ndenominational feeling is still dominant. The slight differences loom\nlarge. Denominational officials for the most part feel that their chief\nduty is to their denomination, from which they hold their official power;\nand this duty is very absorbing. Hence it is often most difficult to gain\nsupport from denominational authorities and churches for\ninterdenominational projects.\n\nMoreover, the direction of interdenominational organization, at the\npresent time, is largely in the hands of men who are responsible for\ndenominational interests, or the interests of other organizations which\nrequire their wholehearted and undivided support. While the cooperation\nand combined judgment of such men is invaluable in the wise direction of\ninterdenominational projects, in Ohio they fail as a driving force. This\nis now the chief cause of weakness in the interdenominational movement for\nchurch and country life in the State.\n\nBoth the work for the country church and for the promoting of rural\nbusiness are rendered ineffective by lack of pecuniary support. In spite\nof this, however, plans for progressive work both for rural business and\nrural church are well developed, and have been tested; and moreover, the\nfeasibility of progress in both these lines of endeavor has been\nthoroughly proved. Two things, then, are now required. These are funds and\nfederated or independent direction of their use.\n\nWe may well expect that adequate funds will be given for carrying on this\nwork in the years immediately following the war. After the sacrifices of\nwar those of peace by comparison will not seem large--while the sacrifices\nof both peace and war are equally necessary for the realization of the\nhigh ideals which as Americans we cherish.\n\nThis war as nothing else has done, has caused men in general to realize\nthat there are tasks for all other than the commercial enterprises of the\nday, and that each of us must accept his share of the responsibility for\ntheir performance. What is worth fighting for during the war is worth\nworking for after the war.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nFEDERATED CHURCHES\n\n\nThere are many rural communities in Ohio where the churches exert a vital\ninfluence in community life, and where farm life succeeds in holding\nfamilies of moral, intellectual, and physical vigor. In some instances the\ncommunities and their churches have not been seriously affected by the\nmodern conditions and tendencies which elsewhere are acting unfavorably\nupon the country church and country life. In other instances, intelligent\nleadership on the part of the ministers has overcome these conditions.\nMany of these ministers highly appreciate the help they have received from\nthe modern country church movement, while not a few have testified that\nwithout it they would have failed.\n\nIn a very large part of rural Ohio the need of interchurch cooperation is\nkeenly realized. In the divided communities the people, for the most part,\nwant to get together, but they do not know how. But in many communities\npractical methods have been found and tested, and by these methods\nChristian cooperation has been brought to pass and the rural church\nconditions have been greatly improved. For that reason descriptions of\nactual successful cases of interchurch cooperation are here supplied.\nThese examples are intended to include federated churches, church\nfederations, and denominational union churches, as well as certain\nstriking cases of the work of the church in community service. The uniting\nof Christian forces will not by itself alone insure rural church progress.\nThe new country church program must be added. In its absence, a real\nadvance appears to be impossible.\n\n\n_Greene Township_\n\nGreene Township, Trumbull County, is situated in northeastern Ohio, in the\nWestern Reserve. In 1900 it had a population of about 800 persons, in 1910\nabout 100 less. Some of its residents are descended from the early\nsettlers from New England, others have recently moved in from western\nsections of Ohio, while possibly 10 per cent are of foreign birth. That\nits people have been somewhat progressive is indicated by the fact that it\nwas among the first three townships in the State to establish a\ncentralized school.\n\nGreene is not a rich township. It has no railroad. About 40 of its houses\nare now vacant. Fields which formerly were producing good crops of wheat,\ncorn, and oats are now growing up to brush. The young men between 25 and\n30 years of age who were going into farming before the war can be counted\non the fingers of one hand. It is probable, however, that a new era in\nagriculture has begun. Quite recently drainage, and in some cases the\napplication of lime, have reclaimed much waste land. Still other land will\nbe treated in the same way and with equally good results. Doubtless, as\nelsewhere, progressive country church work will greatly assist a general\nmovement in the township to secure abundant prosperity.\n\nIn the geographical center of the township are two churches, Methodist\nEpiscopal and Disciples of Christ. These two are about equal in strength,\nwhile in the northwestern part is a Baptist church with but three or four\nfamilies in its membership. The latter, however, supports a Sunday school\nof 30 or 40 attendants.\n\nFormerly, three resident ministers lived in the community, but for twelve\nyears there had been none. The Baptist Church holds only occasional\npreaching services, the Disciples have depended for their preaching upon\nstudent supplies from a neighboring theological school, while the\nministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church have lived outside the\ntownship at North Bloomfield, five miles away, where there are Methodist\nEpiscopal, Disciples, and Congregational churches. The Methodist Episcopal\nChurch at Greene, therefore, was part of a circuit of two churches.\n\nAs is usually the case among farming people of Ohio where there are no\nresident ministers the people of Greene Township received very few\npastoral calls. Several families in the southeastern section of the\ntownship have had little or no association with any ministers or churches.\nMr. Gill recently visited the township on a pleasant Sunday, and learned\nthat less than 30 of its 700 people that day went to church.\n\nAs an indication that the churches of Greene Township have been losing\ntheir hold on the people, it may be noted that an increasing number of\nfamilies do not ask clergymen to officiate at funerals. The undertaker\nsometimes conducts a short service at the grave, or his wife reads a\nprayer and passage of scripture. In view of immemorial custom, the absence\nof a clergyman on such occasions is significant.\n\nThe total amount of money contributed annually to the support of the\nministry in Greene Township has been not more than $600. Of this the\nMethodist Episcopal Church paid its minister $300. The North Bloomfield\nChurch in an adjacent township paid him $500, so that the total salary of\nthe Methodist minister who gave part of his time to Greene Township was\n$800. Obviously this is not enough to support a family and enable the\nminister to keep a motor car or a horse. A large part of his time and\nenergy, therefore, was spent in walking from parish to parish and from\nhouse to house through an area of 50 square miles.\n\nIn January of 1917 a joint committee was appointed by the churches of\nGreene Township to consider the questions of securing a resident pastor,\nincreasing the size of the Sunday school and congregation, and rendering\nall other forms of service needed in the community. It was decided by this\ncommittee that a federated church should be formed in which each\nconstituent ecclesiastical body would preserve its own identity. Each\nchurch would independently meet its obligations to its own denomination in\nall matters outside of the community, while all the members of the\nchurches would unite in local activities, including the support of a\nresident minister. A country life institute was held to stimulate the\ndesire for community improvement, and the plan of church betterment was\nset forth and adopted.\n\nTo secure support for a minister, a thorough canvass was made by a\ncommittee of six representing the three churches. As a result of its work\nno less than $1,500 was subscribed. \"Our results,\" wrote the chairman of\nthis committee, \"have surpassed our brightest hopes. It is a genuine\npleasure to work for something that is going to help the whole community\nand not just a part. I believe the interests of the Kingdom will be\nadvanced most where effort is united in rural communities. In our canvass\nfor funds we were surprised to find that the non-church people were not\nwilling that the churches should close their doors. In addition we found\nthey had a deeper interest in the church than we could possibly expect.\nOne old man, probably sixty-five, said that this was the first time he had\never been asked to give to the support of a church. He added that he often\nfelt he would like to give. Many a man said he would double the amount of\nhis gift if it was necessary.\"\n\nA well-educated minister who has rendered nine successive years of\neffective service in one community has been secured as pastor, and there\nis now a most encouraging prospect of improvement in religious, moral,\nsocial, and economic life. The increased giving in Greene Township has\nalso influenced the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in North\nBloomfield. They have pledged $800, instead of the former $500, for the\nsupport of their minister, and expect to raise $1,000. Bloomfield Township\nalso hereafter will have the undivided service of a minister.\n\nAs a result of this movement in Greene Township, therefore, four of the\nchurches of these two townships will hereafter pay from $2,300 to $2,500\nfor the support of the ministry instead of $1,100 as hitherto, while two\ncommunities will each have the full time service of a resident pastor. The\nsignificance of this increase in the money support of the church will be\napparent to those who have studied modern rural church problems. The\nfailure of the rural churches to give a living wage, much less a working\nsalary, to their ministers has been one of the most discouraging facts in\nthe rural church situation.\n\nIf the three churches of North Bloomfield should federate as those of\nGreene Township have done, doubtless their people could raise $1,500 for\nthe support of the ministry. Again, if all the churches of both North\nBloomfield and Greene should federate it would be possible to employ a\nsingle pastor of even higher grade with an assistant. An automobile could\nbe used effectively to cover both townships. In some cases, as in\nBenzonia, Michigan, one minister with one or more assistants has been able\nto get better results at less expense. The plan is worth trying.\n\n\n_Aurora_\n\nIn the year 1913 in the village of Aurora, Portage County, there were two\nchurches, the Congregational and Disciples of Christ. They were small in\nattendance and membership, and it was hard to get adequate support for the\nministers. The usual results of underpaying the ministry were not wanting.\nAs a preliminary step in the improvement of this situation an organization\nof the men of the churches was formed to promote the general community\nwelfare. As in so many other cases, to bring the churches together in\ncooperative service to the community was seen to be the only way to secure\na vigorous church life for Aurora. That led to the decision to form a\nfederated church under the leadership of one pastor. Under the plan\nadopted, each church was to keep its denominational relations, contribute\nto its denominational benevolences, and fulfill all denominational\nobligations. But in Aurora, as in Greene Township, the people were to work\ntogether as in one church.\n\nOwing to circumstances which were purely accidental, for the first year or\ntwo the church was not very prosperous and the federation was only\npartially successful. But after awhile the church began to take on life.\nWhile at the beginning it was mutually understood that the arrangement was\nto be tried for but two years, at the end of that time the desirability\nof going back to the old way was not even discussed. So far as Mr. Gill\ncould learn in a visit to the community, the one and only one person who\nstill preferred the old way was a woman who had opposed the movement from\nthe start and had always held aloof from it. The opinion of the people is\nnow practically unanimous that both the community and the churches were\ngreatly benefited by the change. The first pastor of this church was of\nthe Disciples, the second a Presbyterian.\n\n\n_Garrettsville_\n\nGarrettsville is a prosperous community on the Erie Railroad between\nYoungstown and Cleveland. Its thousand inhabitants are engaged partly in\nfarming, partly in manufacturing, and partly in supplying the various\ndaily needs of the people. Its good houses, electric lights, paved\nstreets, and trim sidewalks indicate progressiveness and community spirit.\nBeing progressive, the people not merely recognized the undesirability of\ninterchurch competition, but they were able to work out a plan whereby\nthey have largely avoided it.\n\nIn April, 1916, there were four churches in the community, or on an\naverage one to 250 persons. The highest salary paid to its minister by any\nof the churches was $800. Two of the other churches paid much smaller sums\nand shared the service of their ministers with the churches of other\ntowns, while one of the pastors was the Educational Secretary of a Y. M.\nC. A. in a town thirty miles away. The spirit of denominational rivalry\nwas in no respect different from that commonly found where there are too\nmany churches. When the pastor of the Congregational Church attempted to\norganize a branch of the Boy Scouts of America for all the boys in the\ncommunity, he found that the members of the other churches feared he was\nattempting to win the boys over to his church. For this reason he thought\nit best to give up the enterprise.\n\nIn 1914, an unsuccessful attempt was made to unite the Congregational\nChurch and the Disciples, and another to unite the Baptist and\nCongregational churches. In 1916, however, under the influence of the\ncountry church movement in Ohio, a successful effort was made to unite all\nthree of them. In the spring of that year these three churches were all\nwithout pastors. They decided to hold union services and a Union Sunday\nschool during the summer.\n\nUpon trial the advantages of this arrangement became manifest. Not only\nwas the church attendance larger than the aggregate attendance in the\nseparate churches had ever been, but the Sunday school, formerly with\nseparate attendances of 65, 20, and 12, now had an attendance of 130.\nBesides the added enthusiasm of greater numbers, it had better teachers,\nbetter music, and a better Christian spirit.\n\nIn September, 1916, it was decided by separate vote of each church to form\na permanent organization, which was incorporated with the name of \"The\nUnited Church,\" and included all who were members of any of the three\nchurches. No member was asked to alter any of his beliefs, and any\ncandidate for admission might choose his own mode of being received,\nprovided it was one used in some Evangelical church. Contributions for\nmissionary work were sent to denominational bodies indicated by the givers\nor determined by a joint committee. For all local work the members were to\nact as one body. A committee of the United Church chose as pastor a young\nman of rural experience, a graduate of an eastern university and seminary,\nwhose denominational affiliation was regarded as of so little importance\nthat it was not even announced.\n\nThe United Church of Garrettsville, after two years of experience, affords\nreligious opportunities and renders service to the people far beyond\nanything the town could supply before the federation was made.\n\nWhile the three original churches remain intact, the main part of the\nbusiness of the church is done by the committee of the United Church. The\nofficials of the denominations of the three churches interested heartily\nencourage the project. The united force of church workers from three\ndenominations has made a very efficient church.\n\nThe United Church is the result of a desire of the people to be as\nclosely joined in their new church as they were in their different\ndenominational churches. Its motto is \"In essentials, unity, in\nnon-essentials, liberty, in diversities, charity, in all things, Christ\nfirst.\" It accepts the Scriptures as its sufficient rule of faith and\npractice, interpreted in the light of fundamental agreements in\nevangelical teaching, and in the spirit of its motto. Forms of ritual for\nthe sacrament, for the public services, and for admission into the church\nare left to the decision of the minister, and are not provided for in the\nregulations. It was desired to keep the forms of sectarianism too feeble\nto be able to keep the people apart. Persons may join the United Church\nwithout joining any of the three denominations represented by the original\nconstituent bodies.\n\nThe Sunday school is well organized, and is testing its work by the\nhighest standard of Christian education. Its relation to the church is\nvery close. The young people have a Christian Endeavor Society. The\nwomen's work is carried on by a most flourishing society under the name of\n\"The Community Circle,\" whose form of organization provides for taking\ncare of both local and missionary needs. At the first meeting of each\nmonth, half of the time is given to local opportunities for service. The\ngeneral social life of the church is largely cared for by this society.\n\nThe United Church has leased all the property of the old churches for a\nterm of years and cares for the church buildings. It has decided to build\na new community house for promoting the social life of the community and\ngeneral community interests, but has postponed it until after the war. In\nthe Articles of Incorporation one of the objects is regarded as the\nsupport of such enterprises as tend to the more perfect development of the\nchildren and young people spiritually, physically, morally, and socially.\n\nRepresentatives of the old churches usually go to the meetings of their\nrespective denominations, and are accompanied by such members of the\nUnited Church as may wish to attend as visitors. Reports of the meetings\nare made at meetings of the United Church. The pastor of the United Church\nis also pastor of each of the three denominational churches and so far as\npossible attends the district meetings of the denominational bodies in a\nrepresentative capacity and cares for the local denominational interests.\nPublic services and meetings are held in the Congregational Church\nbuilding because it is the largest and best equipped. A baptistry is now\nbeing installed, and various uses are being found for the other buildings.\n\nIt will be noted that the United Church of Garrettsville differs in some\nrespects from the ordinary federated church.\n\n\n_Northfield_\n\nIn Northfield, Summit County, the Presbyterian and Methodist Episcopal\nchurches united by verbal agreement in a federated church on December 1,\n1914. Written articles were adopted several months later. The pastor of\nthe federated church, Rev. J. M. Keck, has kindly given us the following\nbrief account:\n\n\"The consent of the higher officials of each denomination was first\nsecured. Then the members of the local churches agreed to the following\nplan:\n\n\"The Presbyterians remain in the Cleveland Presbytery and the Methodists\nin the Northeast Ohio Conference as before. The legal organization of each\nlocal church continues intact. Each set of trustees has charge of its\nproperty. The Presbyterian Church being the better located, is used for\nworship, and the Methodist for dinners, etc. When a building needs\nrepairs, funds are raised from the entire congregation by voluntary\ncontributions.\n\n\"The only additional organization is an Executive Committee, half\nPresbyterians and half Methodists, which has charge of current expenses\nand all matters relating to the congregation as a whole. An every-member\ncanvass for the local budget is made in which no account is taken of\nchurch relations, no one but the treasurer knowing how much is contributed\nby each denomination. Benevolent contributions are equally divided\nbetween the denominational boards or applied to the Presbyterian or\nMethodist funds as indicated on envelopes.\n\n\"Persons desiring to unite with the church elect whether they are to be\nPresbyterians or Methodists and are received accordingly. No one seems to\ncare in which they are enrolled, since they work in the same congregation\nand contribute to the same funds. The order of public worship is a\nmodification of each of those formerly in use but retains the essential\nfeatures of both.\n\n\"So far there has not been the slightest friction between the\ndenominations. No one seems to think of ever going back to the old way.\n\n\nWHAT THE PRESBYTERIANS GAINED\n\n\"1. A church was saved for the denomination which in time would probably\nhave been forced to disband.\n\n\"2. Several hundred dollars of home missionary money was saved annually\nwhich had been expended in Northfield to keep the church open and alive.\nUnder the federation it is not needed.\n\n\"3. Offerings are made to the various boards and interests of\nPresbyterianism.\n\n\nWHAT THE METHODIST CONFERENCE GAINED\n\n\"1. A church was saved that doubtless would have been closed in a few\nyears for want of support.\n\n\"2. The salary of the pastor has been increased and also the stipends of\nthe district superintendent, the bishops, conferences, and claimants.\n\n\"3. The contributions to all boards and benevolences have been increased.\n\n\nWHAT THE COMMUNITY GAINED\n\n\"1. Federation saves paying two pastors and keeping two church buildings\nwhen one is sufficient. It makes the public more willing to aid.\n\n\"2. The congregation being more than doubled, there is more enthusiasm and\nwillingness to work.\n\n\"3. It has silenced the criticism that the churches are competing instead\nof cooperating.\n\n\"4. The economic and fraternal features of federation appeal to the public\nand bring into line people who did not patronize either church before.\"\n\n\n_Federated Churches in Other States_\n\nMore churches have been federated in New England than in any other section\nof the United States. Familiarity with the success or failure of these\nchurches is therefore necessary to a reasonably full discussion of\ninterchurch cooperation. Accordingly information blanks were sent to a\nnumber of these federated churches. The inquiries were expressed as\nfollows:\n\n1. Date of Federation?\n\n2. Denominations of constituent bodies?\n\n3. Membership of each church at the time of federation?\n\n4. Denomination of the first minister and of succeeding ministers?\n\n5. Do the people like the present arrangement better than the old?\n\n6. Do many people want to go back to the old way?\n\n7. Have church benevolences declined or increased?\n\n8. How has the pecuniary support of the ministry been affected?\n\n9. How have other expenditures of the church been affected?\n\n10. Has attendance declined or increased?\n\n11. Has church membership declined or increased?\n\n12. What effect, if any, has the formation of the federated church had\nupon the social life of the community?\n\n13. Kindly express frankly your opinion of the federated church as a means\nof securing Christian unity and church efficiency.\n\nFifteen churches replied. In these fifteen federated churches were\nthirteen Congregational churches, nine Methodist Episcopal, seven\nBaptist, and one Universalist. The Universalist was federated with a\nCongregational church, two federated churches were made up of Baptist and\nMethodist, five of Baptist and Congregational, seven of Methodist\nEpiscopal and Congregational.\n\nThe first ministers of four of the federated churches were Baptists, of\nfive, Methodist Episcopal, and of five, Congregational.\n\nOne of the churches had had an experience of sixteen years, one of eleven,\ntwo of eight, two of six, two of five, two of four, two of three, three of\ntwo, making the average experience of the fifteen federated churches more\nthan five years.\n\nOf the fifteen answers to question 5, thirteen said that the people liked\nthe present arrangement better than the old, while the other two said\nthere were not many people who wanted to go back to the old way.\n\nIn reply to question 7, eight declared that the benevolences had\nincreased, three that they had remained the same, one said benevolences\nvaried in different years, while in three the benevolences had declined.\nIn one of these the decline was very slight and there was a prospect of an\nincrease in the future.\n\nIn thirteen the support of the ministry has been favorably affected by the\nfederation. From one the answer is ambiguous. In the case of Truro,\nMassachusetts, where one church had a membership of three and the other of\neight, at the time of federation, the answer indicates a decrease in the\namount given to the salary.\n\nThe answers to question 9 indicate that the running expenditures of the\nchurches are often less and that the money is more easily raised to meet\nthem.\n\nTo question 10, nine of the answers denoted an increased attendance, five\nno noticeable change. No church reported a decrease. In one case the\nanswer was obscure.\n\nThe answers to question 11 report that eight have increased in membership,\nfive have remained stationary, one reports normal additions, and one a\nslight decrease.\n\nIn answer to question 12, twelve churches reported a favorable effect upon\nthe social life of the community, two recently formed reported that there\nwas no marked effect yet, while one gave no answer. All but one of the\ncorrespondents cherish a strong opinion that the federated church is the\nbest arrangement when a community is overchurched and the churches are\nsmall. One pastor of a federation had nothing to say.\n\nThe following are the replies to the request made at the end of the\nquestionnaire, \"Kindly express frankly your opinion of the federated\nchurch as a means of securing Christian unity and church efficiency\":\n\n1. \"Nothing to say.\"\n\n2. \"I do not see any reasons why two or more churches of Congregational\nform of government should not federate, but it would be difficult to\nfederate with Episcopal form of church government.\"\n\n3. \"The efficiency here has been greater since these churches federated\nthan it was before. No church could support a pastor. The Baptist Church\nhad been pastorless for three and a half years. The Congregational Church\nwas supplied by students from Hartford Theological Seminary. Now they pay\na fair salary and give free use of parsonage. Federation is the best\nsolution of overchurched communities.\"\n\n4. \"The federated church should be adopted in rural communities and in\nmany small cities. I see no other way to bring the church into its place\nas a social and religious power.\"\n\n5. \"It is my opinion that for a community that is like this one a\nfederated church is a great means to secure Christian unity and\nefficiency. At our last meeting there were but two who were not\nenthusiastic for its continuance. Our field here would be much better if\nthere were not another church in the community outside the federation.\nThere is still the Unitarian Church outside the federation which\nnecessarily makes a divided leadership in the small community. Our\nfederated church has grown from two small churches to the position of\ndominance in the community. Our decrease in benevolences is largely\nexplainable and excusable perhaps in that it occurred during the time when\nthere were so many other things to take care of, relative to the\nfederation. It will not happen again, but for a part of the time we were\nwithout a pastor and during the rest of the time exceedingly busy getting\nthings adjusted.\"\n\n6. \"We are thoroughly satisfied. Each church in denominational\nrelationship (the Methodist Episcopal and Congregational) is as\nindependent and well organized as before federation. Each church is\nstronger than before federation. We look forward to the day when\nfederation will be the rule in overchurched communities for the sake of\nthe good of church and community rather than from pecuniary necessity.\"\nThis opinion was expressed after an experience of sixteen years of the\nfederated church.\n\n7. \"Having been pastor of the federated church in Somerset for three years\nI am glad to be able to say that I unqualifiedly recommend federation as a\nsolution of the overchurched problem in country and village. Wherever\nthere are genuine Christian members, federation will work perfectly.\"\n\n8. \"It is a great help in small places.\"\n\n9. \"Our federation has been a great success. Perfect harmony seems to\nreign.\"\n\n10. \"A strong church can do better work alone, but two or more weak\nchurches should unite in the support of one minister. A federated church\ngives opportunity for denominational loyalty and connections. This is\nimportant.\"\n\n11. \"This is a small town, only about 435 population, but it is a summer\nresort and during the months of July and August a great many city people\nattend church. I am pastor of this church and North Thetford, another\nfederated church about five miles south. It is about the only way these\nchurches could be run, for both are small places.\"\n\n12. \"This federated church is in a flourishing condition. During the\npresent pastorate since May, 1914, 31 have been received into the church.\nThe building has been remodeled at a cost of about $3,500, all paid but\n$300.00.\"\n\n13. \"It is the most efficient means of securing Christian unity and church\nefficiency ever discovered. It is the ideal way.\"\n\n14. \"I am convinced of the sincerity of Christian unity and of the\npossibility of church efficiency, but it has not really approached that\nreality any more than some denominational churches have in rural centers.\nBut it is a wholesome and generally satisfactory plan of religious service\nin a community of changing personnel. In the community is quite a large\nCatholic element and also a very progressive and influential Universalist\nelement. This remains in our midst practically unassimilated as yet, after\na dozen years with no services in their church. The children are coming\ninto the Sunday school pretty well and time will overcome some of these\nobstacles.\"\n\n15. \"It is the reasonable and only possible means in this and many other\ncommunities in Cape Cod, but it needs energy and aggressive effort to\nsucceed.\"\n\nIn the face of the fact that a very large proportion of denominational\nrural churches are on the decline, the experience of these fifteen\nchurches constitutes very strong evidence that the federated church is a\npractical means of securing Christian unity and increased church\nefficiency in small overchurched communities.\n\nIn order to learn whether or not it is true that only the more successful\nchurches replied to the questionnaire, we have by other means secured\ninformation in regard to certain churches which did not reply. Some of\nthem were found to be as successful as those which did. For example, the\nfederated church of North Wilbraham, Massachusetts, the constituent bodies\nof which are Methodist Episcopal and Congregational churches, has greatly\nincreased in membership, attendance, and in the influence it exerts for\nvarious kinds of progress in its community. It would be very difficult to\nfind any country church, either denominational or federated, whose record\nfor service is better.\n\nIn two cases in New England where the federated church has failed, it was\nreported that the pastors regarded the federated church as a temporary\nexpedient and tried hard to change it into a denominational church. Such\naction would necessarily be regarded as a breach of faith on the part of\none of the churches, and disaster might well be expected to follow. The\nauthors know of no experience which indicates any inherent weakness in the\nfederated church, nor so far as they are aware is there any evidence that\na federated church has injured the denomination of any component church.\nOn the contrary, a very large majority of the small churches which have\nunited with others in such federation have gained rather than lost, with a\nresulting benefit to each denomination concerned.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nOTHER PROGRESSIVE CHURCHES\n\n\n1. _A Church Federation_\n\nIn the village of Shiloh in Richland County are two churches, Lutheran and\nMethodist Episcopal, each supporting a resident pastor. Each seems to be\nstrong enough to sustain alone its ordinary activities. For this and other\nreasons there has been no desire to unite the churches into one\ncongregation. But they had both neglected to provide means of meeting many\nof the community's needs, such as opportunities for social life,\nrecreation, and athletics, or to stimulate others to make provision for\nthem. As usual under such conditions, gambling and other amusements of a\nquestionable sort became more or less common. In order the better to look\nafter the needs of the young people and to strengthen the moral life of\nthe community, a committee representing both of the churches was appointed\nto provide and carry out a program for the community welfare.\n\nOne of the features of this program is a successful movement for the\npromotion of the social, athletic, and play life of this and neighboring\ncommunities. The life of the neighborhood has been made more attractive,\nespecially for the young people, while some of the forms of petty vice\nhave disappeared. Union services are frequently held by the two churches.\nIn every way their work is becoming more effective.\n\nThis form of cooperative organization may be called a church federation,\nbut it should be distinguished from the federated church, which is the\nunion of two or more churches into a single congregation. In every rural\ncommunity where it is neither feasible nor desirable to unite all the\nchurches under the leadership of one pastor, a church federation should\nbe formed to create conditions favorable to the development of Christian\ncharacter, to hold community religious services and social gatherings, and\nto render all forms of social service which are needed in the community,\nbut are not rendered by other institutions.\n\n\n2. _Cooperation with Other Social Forces_\n\nWhere there are social organizations other than school and church it often\nhappens that the churches can get better results by working with them. An\nexample of this kind of cooperation may be found in White Cottage, Newton\nTownship, Muskingum County. Here the pastor of the Methodist Episcopal\nChurch made a thorough survey of the community in an area which included\nfour churches. He then prepared a sermon on the much needed country life\nmovement, and sent a personal letter to every family in the area covered\nby the survey, inviting its members to come and hear his sermon. Large\nnumbers responded. Then a mass meeting was called to discuss the\nsituation, and the results of the survey were set forth. A committee was\nappointed to draw up a constitution for a community betterment\norganization. At a second mass meeting it was adopted. Under it every\nmember of the community became a member of the association. Every social\norganization in the community was given equal representation on the\nExecutive Committee, which has standing committees on programs and\npublicity, on religion and social service, on education, on recreation and\nphysical culture, and on finance.\n\nA general cleaning up of the community followed. An unsightly square was\ntransferred into an attractive playground, where every Saturday afternoon\nthere was basket ball, volley ball, croquet, tennis, track athletics, or\nbaseball. A library and public reading room was opened, a temperance\nprogram was adopted, farmers' institutes were established, and lectures on\nagriculture and home economics were given, together with a Chautauqua\ncourse of lectures for winter and summer, and a series of home talent\nplays. There were three holiday picnics each summer, and field day\nexercises with a parade, platform meetings, and a community dinner.\n\nOther results of this movement are a fine new school building with a large\nauditorium, and greatly improved roads. Moreover, a favorable reaction has\nbeen felt in the churches. Whereas, formerly but 37-1/2 per cent of the\npopulation were church attendants, now there are 58 per cent; where\nformerly 40 per cent of the people went to Sunday school, now there are 52\nper cent. The whole community shows a higher moral tone.\n\nWhile the churches at White Cottage were not united in any organic way,\nyet a spirit of Christian unity was brought about. The very best of\nfeeling exists among the different churches, and their members work\ntogether gladly in community improvement. As the result of such an\natmosphere the evils of overchurching are reduced to a minimum, and it\nbecomes easier to bring about such reorganization as may be for the best\nreligious and social welfare of the community.\n\nOrganizations of cooperating rural social forces, like that at White\nCottage, for many years have been doing good work in other states, both\nEast and West. In large numbers of communities, particularly where the\nchurches cannot be federated, or where bitter feeling has resulted from\ninterchurch competition, the best method of progress is often to bring\nabout such a cooerdination of forces in the service of the community\nitself.\n\n\n3. _Community Service and Christian Unity_\n\nAshley, in Delaware County, is a town of about 600 inhabitants. Here a\nresident pastor's desire to serve his community resulted in Christian\nunity. Twelve years ago there were four competing churches, poorly\nattended and struggling for existence. Camp meetings of a fanatical sect\nwere often held in the neighborhood. In the churches of the town seasons\nof protracted meetings were characterized by excessive emotion at the\ntime, but by few permanent good results. While respect for religion is\nnecessary to a high degree of moral and social life in any country\ncommunity, a large proportion of the people in Ashley no longer respected\nthe church because of the character of its religious activities. Many of\nthe most influential citizens even doubted whether the church was good for\nthe community or not. High ideals were conspicuously lacking among the\nyoung people, and disorderly conduct was beginning to appear.\n\nIn the year 1907 the Methodist Episcopal Church acquired a pastor who by\nnature and training was well equipped for his work. Fortunately he was the\nonly resident minister in the town, where he remained for nearly ten\nyears. As the result of his leadership the whole community now has a high\nregard for religion and the church, while a practical Christian unity has\nbeen brought about and interchurch competition has disappeared. The moral\nand religious atmosphere of the place has become wholesome.\n\nCommunity life has been made attractive through special instruction and\nentertainment, social gatherings, athletics, and all kinds of healthy\namusement.\n\nThere still are two churches, but one of them meets not oftener than once\na month, is attended by only two or three families, and has ceased to be a\nfactor in the life of the community. The other church is well attended and\nis generally recognized as the community church. The members of the two\nchurches which have dropped out have, for the most part, united with it,\nwhile the building of one of them has become the gymnasium of the\ncommunity church.\n\nThough the work of this successful pastor was begun before the modern\ncountry life and country church movement had been developed, his program\nand methods of work in no way differ from those which are common to the\nnation-wide movement. In fact large numbers of country pastors, widely\nscattered over the United States, entirely independent of one another or\nof the literature of any special movement, have made and carried out\nprograms for church and community betterment which in their essentials are\nsubstantially alike. The pastors have all studied the needs of their\ncommunities and have tried to meet them. Similarity of needs in the\ndifferent communities has naturally resulted in the adoption of similar\nprograms.\n\nThe pastor who did at Ashley the work just described began by making a\nthorough study of his parish. He then led the young people into active\nwork for their community, and later on stimulated the older men to do\ntheir part also, until finally it became recognized in Ashley that the\nduty of the Christian and the church is not to work mainly for the church,\nbut mainly for the common welfare and the development of all the people.\n\nThis minister never emphasized any form of sectarianism. He thought of\nhimself as pastor of the whole town and countryside rather than of his\nchurch alone, so that whatever he did was entirely free from the spirit of\ncompetition. The people did not fail to recognize his aims, and, in\nconsequence, were satisfied with his leadership. Thus it became possible\nfor him and his church to work to satisfy the needs of all the people. The\nPresbyterians and Friends, therefore, willingly joined his church and gave\nup their own. But if in speech or deed he had attempted to build up his\nown church at the expense of the others, there would undoubtedly be four\nchurches in Ashley to-day.\n\nThe Ashley community church secured the creation of a community library,\nitself provided a community reading room, gave special attention to the\nday school and its teachers, held each year free university extension\nlectures on agriculture and home economics, lectures on sanitation and\nprevention of diseases, gave socials and festivals, promoted athletics,\nmaintained a church gymnasium, and formed farmers' clubs and helped them\nin their work. Though there were lodges in Ashley which held occasional\ngatherings, still the church was generally recognized as the institution\nwhich supplied the opportunities for social life for the whole community.\nThe church became preeminently the most democratic and most popular\ninstitution in the town.\n\nSimplicity of organization was the aim of the pastor. Sunday school\nclasses, including a men's Bible class, were organized, and were\nstimulated to do their best to meet the social and other needs of the\ncommunity. So well did they do their work that other organizations were\nfound to be unnecessary. One unusual feature of the pastor's work was the\ncombining of the Bible school session on Sunday morning with the service\nof the church, making one service of worship, at which communion is\nadministered and members are received.\n\nNo collections are taken up in the church, but a budget is made at the\nbeginning of the year and the money is raised through a church committee.\nContributions for benevolences have been greatly increased during this\npastorate, and large sums have been spent for building and improvements.\nYet nevertheless the community did not furnish adequate support for its\npastor, undoubtedly because as in the case of nearly all pastors, he\nrefused to work for an increase in his own salary, while, as in nearly all\nsmall communities, no one else took the matter up. In this respect,\ntherefore, the people acted unjustly towards their minister.\n\nIt should be noted that the minister was well trained and of high\ncharacter; that he lived in the community he served; that he was given a\nlong term of service; and that he cherished a right conception of the work\nof minister and church.\n\nSuch work as this is badly needed in multitudes of communities in Ohio. It\nis the only thing that can preserve or restore their wholesomeness and\nmake them suitable places for the rearing of children. The church, as a\nwhole, should spare no effort in providing large numbers of such men to do\nthis kind of work, for the total result of so doing would be an increase\nof untold value in the strength of the very foundations of Christian\ncivilization in America.\n\n\n4. _Christian Unity by Necessity_\n\nIn Ontario, Springfield Township, Richland County, there were three\nchurches,--Presbyterian, United Presbyterian, and Methodist Episcopal.\nBecause many of the best families had left, the Presbyterian churches have\nheld no regular services since the year 1900. For a time the Methodist\nEpiscopal Church shared a resident minister with three or four other\nchurches, but from 1912 Springfield Township was left without a resident\nminister for three years. Under these circumstances it was inevitable that\nsocial and moral decline should begin, for the modern community's needs\ncannot be met by the old-fashioned circuit system. More and more the\nbetter families moved away or relapsed into the background, and the less\nmoral elements became conspicuous. A dance hall became the haunt of\ndisorderly people from neighboring towns. Drunkenness grew apace, while\nbad language on the streets was altogether too common. Pilfering the\nproperty of the railroad was more or less open. It was high time to act.\n\nAccordingly, the people of all the denominations and the non-church people\nwho lived in the township, realizing that it was going from bad to worse,\njoined in deciding that a resident minister was necessary. Money was\nraised, and the future support of a minister was promised if the Methodist\nEpiscopal Conference would send them a good man.\n\nThe new minister began his work in the autumn of 1915. The total budget of\nthe church had been about $500, of which less than $250 went to the\nminister's salary. During his first year, $1,540 was raised, $900 of which\nwent for the support of the minister. In the second year no less than\n$7,500 was raised, $1,000 for the minister's salary, $540 for ordinary\nexpenses, while the rest went to the permanent repairs on the church\nbuildings.\n\nAs in Ashley, so in Springfield Township; the pastor regarded his church\nas a community church and thought of himself as a Christian rather than as\na sectarian. The attendance more than doubled both at the church services\nand at the Sunday school, while the real membership increased from less\nthan 100 to 315. When the Presbyterians saw the manifest good that could\nbe brought by united Christian action, they became members of the\nMethodist Episcopal Church, while later on they made a Christmas present\nof their building to the Methodist community church. It is now used as the\nhouse of worship, while the Methodist Church has become a gymnasium and\nparish house.\n\nUnder the leadership of the new resident minister a genuine cleaning up of\nthe gross indecency was made, some of the most harmful characters left,\nand the place became comparatively orderly. The village has been\ntransformed from a rural slum to a very decent community,--a safe place to\nbring up children. This better state of things will undoubtedly continue\nas long as the present system of church work prevails.\n\nThe plan of this church's work did not differ from that of many other\nmodern country churches. It included Sunday school classes organized for\nsocial service, athletics, including basket ball, a full program of social\nactivities, lectures to promote an intelligent interest in agriculture,\nand active interest on the part of the minister in cooperating with the\nday schools and providing opportunities for intellectual advancement.\n\nThe pastor declares that the work in Springfield Township was made\npossible only because he could live in the community, because he could\ngive his whole time to this field, and because of the program of country\nchurch service with which, through the Conference of the Commission on\nChurch and Country Life which was held in Columbus in 1915 and through\nmodern country church literature, he had become familiar. He asserts that\nwithout the modern program and conception of the function of the country\nchurch, success would have been impossible.\n\n\n5. _The Church as a Force for Righteousness_\n\nIn the work at Ashley and Ontario we have seen the adoption of a good\nprogram accompanied by improvement in the moral tone and religious\natmosphere of the communities. There are many other communities where a\nsimilar program has been carried out, with the same results. These cases\nconstitute a fairly conclusive demonstration that the varied community\nlife which is stimulated and made possible by the modern country church\nprogram is the normal one, and that without these various activities\ngeneral moral and religious health is impossible.\n\nThe leadership of a modern country church minister brought about just\nsuch an improvement in the community life of Old Fort. This pastor came to\nrealize the needs of his community by taking part in the Ohio Rural Life\nSurvey. One direct result of his work is a centralized agricultural high\nschool, which will become the means of keeping the best families on the\nland instead of letting them move to the larger towns in search of better\nschools for the children. Once gone they rarely return.\n\nThe young men of Old Fort, who formerly had little to do with the church,\nare now active in its work. Special attention has been given, in a\nneighboring parish served by the same minister, to the farm laborers and\ntenants. Whereas formerly these people rarely went to church, now as large\na proportion of them take part in the activities of the church as of any\nother class. This is an achievement of real importance. It appears from\nMap 12, which is based on data from the United States Census, that, in no\nless than 54 of the 88 counties of Ohio, more than 25 per cent of the\nfarms in the year 1910 were operated by tenants. On Map 13 it appears that\nin no less than 50 counties the number of farms operated by tenants is\nincreasing. Here is one of the great obstacles in the way of church\nprogress in the State, for it is well known that farm tenants usually take\nlittle interest in the community where they live, while only a small\nproportion of them are members of the church. Until reform in the system\nof land tenure can be brought to pass through legislation, it is most\nimportant that the church shall give special attention to the tenant\nfamilies.\n\n\n[Illustration: MAP 12 SHOWING BY COUNTIES PERCENTAGE OF ALL FARMS OPERATED\nBY TENANTS]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 13 SHOWING INCREASE (+) OR DECREASE (-) PER CENT IN\nNUMBER OF FARMS OPERATED BY TENANTS YEARS 1900-1910]\n\n\nSuccess in this parish, according to the testimony of the minister, is due\nto the program brought to light by the modern country church movement.\nIndeed, we have observed no notably progressive country churches in small\ncommunities where the new country church program has not been an essential\nfactor of success. Lakeville is a case in point.\n\nIn the village of Lakeville, as in a large proportion of Ohio rural\ncommunities, opportunities for wholesome recreation were few. The church\nnot only felt no responsibility for providing a better environment for the\nyoung people, but looked upon matters which have to do with recreation,\nentertainment, and physical development as foreign to it. To give them\nattention was regarded as beneath its dignity. This attitude, both here\nand in a large proportion of the rural churches, has been responsible in\nno small degree for a general moral laxness in communities, and often for\nthe separation of the young people from the church.\n\nThe moral and social conditions in Lakeville have been revolutionized by a\nresident minister in three years. His conception of his work and the\nmethods he used did not differ materially from those of the pastors of\nAshley, Ontario, and Old Fort. Every wholesome feature of community life\nwas regarded by him as a matter of interest to the church. Thus, to\npromote a deeper interest in agriculture, lecturers and demonstrators upon\nvarious phases of it were invited into the community.\n\nUnder the leadership of this minister a wholesome, normal, interesting\nlife, leading to the high development of the young people, and a marked\nincrease in the general happiness of the community, has been brought to\npass. The excellent auditorium of the consolidated school was made the\nsocial center of the community. The pastor and the members of his church\nwere the initiators and chief supporters of the program of recreation,\ninstruction, and entertainment which was carried out largely in this\nbuilding. Although in Lakeville the church wisely kept itself in the\nbackground in much of its work, its activities were none the less\neffective, while this policy also reacted favorably upon the church\nitself.\n\nAlthough there were two churches yoked together in this field, they were\nbut a mile and a half apart, and the parish was therefore compact.\nConsequently the pastor could and did make much of his pastoral work. The\nclose touch of the minister with the members of his church and community\ngreatly added to the effectiveness of the evangelistic services which he\nheld, for he befriended those who had need of friends. Hence there was not\nonly a large increase in membership, but the results of it promised to be\nof a durable character.\n\nIt will be noted that the minister was pastor of all the churches in the\ncommunity and so encountered none of the difficulties which come from\ninterchurch competition.\n\nThe kind of community service which is illustrated at Ashley, Ontario, Old\nFort, White Cottage, and Lakeville offers abundant opportunity to a young\nman of good equipment for using his knowledge and native ability, and\nshould therefore attract a better type of man to the rural ministry. The\nchurch as a whole should be active in presenting it to young men, for the\npurpose of getting the best of them to enlist in it. The conservation of\nthe high character of our rural population depends on just such work.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nAGRICULTURAL COOPERATION A MUCH NEEDED SECULAR ORGANIZATION\n\n\nNo program for the conservation and improvement of rural life will succeed\nunless it provides for the successful promotion of cooperative\nagricultural business organization. Even if all the reforms we have\nsuggested are made, the need to stimulate, assist, and guide the business\norganization of farmers will still remain. Strong modern country churches\nwill not flourish in unprogressive communities whose business is not\nsuccessful.\n\nRural business must be effectively organized to enable the farmers to get\na just money return for the service they give. A sound economic basis for\na more attractive rural life can be provided in no other way. Through\ntraining and experience in successful cooperative enterprises, farmers may\nachieve a greater degree of solidarity, and acquire a larger share in the\ndirection and control of industrial, political, and economic life of the\nNation. With it will come larger respect for rural occupations, an added\nprestige and attractiveness to agricultural life, and the chance of real\nsuccess for the modern country church.\n\nThe field of agricultural cooperation cannot be filled by any government\nagency. However excellent the provisions of the Smith-Lever bill, under\nwhich an agricultural adviser will be placed in every county in the United\nStates, however valuable the instruction and advice of the State\nAgricultural Colleges, when the Government and the churches have done all\nthat can reasonably be expected of them, the task of organizing rural\nbusiness will remain undone until it is accomplished by the farmers\nthemselves, acting through associations of their own which are formally\nallied with neither church nor government.\n\nConclusive evidence on this point is supplied by more than fifty years of\nexperience in Europe, and by somewhat less in the United States. Within\nthe past five years an attempt to promote cooperative agricultural\nbusiness organization has been made by the National Government. It failed,\nin general, because the Government cannot successfully undertake such\nwork, and in particular because special interests which were making large\nprofits by the exploitation of farmers had laws passed which effectually\ndefeated the attempt. Within the past three years agricultural agents of\nthe Government in Ohio who attempted to promote a cooperative movement\namong farmers were forced by similar interests to abandon the work or\nleave the county where they were employed. It is well known that the\nfaculties of certain State Agricultural colleges, though fully aware of\nthe need for sound cooperative agricultural business, do not attempt to\ngive instructions in its principles because of the effective opposition\nthey anticipate from persons and corporations whose business makes their\ninterests hostile to those of the farmer.\n\nIf the Government cannot meet the whole need, no more can the churches.\nBusiness cooperation, which they should encourage but cannot supply, is\nindispensable. For more than fifty years churches and clergymen in Europe\nhave been rendering most effective service in the promotion of cooperative\nagricultural organization in business. In America likewise they can and\nshould be of essential help in the same good work, for the principles of\nsuccessful agricultural business are in close harmony with Christian\nethics. Moreover, the social and moral effects of cooperative business on\ncommunities and individuals are of a most favorable character. In the year\n1913 Mr. Gill was present at a meeting of representatives of government\nagricultural departments of fifteen nations, where it was asserted that\nagricultural cooperation was the application of Christianity to the\nbusiness of the farm.\n\nRural business, however, should not be organically allied with the church\nany more than it should be with the State. While the ministers and\nchurches may do much to educate the farmers in regard to cooperation, to\ninterpret it, to increase the good results of it, and in many ways give\nvaluable assistance to it, the movement for cooperation can only be made\nsuccessful when promoted by voluntary secular organizations entirely\nindependent both of church and state.\n\nCooperation is most needed where the people are poorest. In such districts\nit is easiest to inaugurate it, and then by demonstration to show the high\nand important character of its benefits. From the poorer regions it tends\nto spread into the richer ones and in this way to diffuse itself widely.\n\nNot long ago it was found that farmers in Pike County were selling their\neggs to merchants for 16 cents a dozen when in the towns nearby the market\nprice was 25 cents. Almost the entire potato crop of this county in 1916\nwas handled by middlemen at a profit of more than 100 per cent. Fruit\nraising could be made most profitable in large parts of Ohio which at\npresent are not prosperous, but without cooperative organization the\ndifficulty of marketing fruit is very great. In the purchase of farm\nimplements, fertilizers, and other supplies, great savings to the farmers\nare undoubtedly possible.\n\nThere are few regions where cooperative organization is more needed, and\nwould be more likely to succeed, if properly directed, than in\nsoutheastern Ohio. It would not only increase the economic prosperity of\nthis region, but it would exert also a most wholesome moral and social\neffect, whereby the work of the church would be accelerated. The constant\napplication of the principles of brotherhood in everyday business is an\ninfluence of the highest value, and it cannot safely be neglected as a\nmeans for the Christianizing of rural society.\n\n\n\n\nPART II\n\nTABULAR SUMMARIES AND MAPS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nGEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE DENOMINATIONS\n\n\nIt appears that of the 6,060 churches in the 1,170 strictly rural\ntownships of Ohio no less than 1,793, or nearly 30 per cent, are of the\nMethodist Episcopal denomination (see Table D and Maps 14-25); 521 are of\nthe United Brethren in Christ; 396 are Presbyterian; 379 are Baptist,\nincluding Free Will, Free, and Missionary; 367 Disciples; 362 Lutheran;\n248 Roman Catholic; 228 Christian; 211 Methodist Protestant; 175 Reformed;\n135 Congregational; 129 Evangelical Association; 113 Brethren or German\nBaptists; 95 Radical United Brethren; 92 Christian Union; 84 Societies of\nFriends; and 77 United Presbyterian. None of the other denominations has\nmore than 1 per cent of the total number.\n\nThe denominations are represented in about the same proportion in the\nsuburban rural districts.\n\n\nTABLE D\n\nNUMBER OF CHURCHES IN EACH DENOMINATION\n\n Key:\n 1 _Strictly rural townships_\n 2 _Per cent_\n 3 _Other rural sections_\n 4 _Per cent_\n 5 _All rural churches_\n 6 _Per cent_\n\n Denomination 1 2 3 4 5 6\n\n Total 6060 100 582 100 6642 100\n Methodist Episcopal 1793 29.6 171 29.4 1964 29.6\n United Brethren in Christ 521 8.6 81 13.9 602 9.1\n Presbyterian 396 6.5 29 5. 425 6.4\n Baptist (Including Free, Free\n Will and Missionary) 379 6.2 26 4.4 405 6.1\n Disciples of Christ 367 6. 20 3.4 387 5.9\n Lutheran 362 6. 49 8.4 411 6.2\n Catholic (Roman) 248 4.1 17 2.9 265 4.\n Christian 228 3.8 20 3.4 248 3.7\n Methodist Protestant 211 3.5 19 3.3 230 3.5\n Reformed (Including\n German Reformed) 175 2.9 26 4.4 201 3.\n Congregational 135 2.2 12 2.1 147 2.2\n Evangelical Association 129 2.6 14 2.4 143 2.2\n Brethren (German Baptist) 113 1.9 14 2.4 127 1.9\n Radical United Brethren 95 1.6 9 1.5 104 1.6\n Christian Union 92 1.5 4 Less 96 1.4\n than 1\n Friends 84 1.4 8 1.4 92 1.4\n United Presbyterian 77 1.3 9 1.5 86 1.3\n Mennonite 56 Less 9 1.5 65 Less\n than 1 than 1\n Church of God 54 \" 8 1.4 62 \"\n German Evangelical 48 \" 1 Less 49 \"\n than 1\n African and all Colored\n Methodist Episcopal 40 \" 2 \" 42 \"\n Union 40 \" 10 1.7 50 \"\n Protestant Episcopal 39 \" 2 Less 41 \"\n than 1\n Universalist 39 \" 0 \" 39 \"\n Colored Baptist 38 \" 3 \" 41 \"\n Disciples Non-Progressive 32 \" 1 \" 33 \"\n Free Methodist 27 \" 5 \" 32 \"\n German Methodist Episcopal 27 \" 0 \" 27 \"\n United Evangelical 27 \" 2 \" 29 \"\n Holiness 25 \" 6 1 31 \"\n { Old Order\n Brethren { Progressive 21 \" 3 \" 24 \"\n { River\n Primitive Baptist 21 \" 0 \" 21 \"\n Wesleyan Methodist 18 \" 0 \" 18 \"\n Seventh Day Advent 13 \" 0 \" 13 \"\n Advent-Christian 12 \" 0 \" 12 \"\n Calvinist Methodist 12 \" 1 \" 13 \"\n Reformed Presbyterian 8 \" 0 \" 8 \"\n Latter Day Saints 6 \" 0 \" 6 \"\n Nazarene 5 \" 0 \" 5 \"\n Saints 5 \" 0 \" 5 \"\n United Baptist 5 \" 0 \" 5 \"\n Christian Missionary Alliance 4 \" 0 \" 4 \"\n Greek Catholic 4 \" 0 \" 4 \"\n Moravian 4 \" 0 \" 4 \"\n Christian Science 3 \" 0 \" 3 \"\n International Bible\n Students, Association 3 \" 0 \" 3 \"\n Federated 3 \" 0 \" 3 \"\n Missionary Church Association 2 \" 0 \" 2 \"\n Pietist 1 \" 0 \" 1 \"\n Primitive Methodist 1 \" 0 \" 1 \"\n Russian Catholic 1 \" 0 \" 1 \"\n Seven Sleepers 1 \" 0 \" 1 \"\n Seventh Day Baptist 1 \" 0 \" 1 \"\n Slavic Lutheran 1 \" 0 \" 1 \"\n Wengerite 1 \" 0 \" 1 \"\n Brothers Society of America 0 \" 1 \" 1 \"\n Denomination not reported 7 \" 0 \" 7 \"\n\n\n[Illustration: MAP 14 METHODIST EPISCOPAL COUNTRY CHURCHES]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 15 UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 16 PRESBYTERIAN]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 17 BAPTIST]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 18 DISCIPLES OF CHRIST]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 19 LUTHERAN]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 20 CATHOLIC]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 21 CHRISTIAN]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 22 METHODIST PROTESTANT]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 23 REFORMED]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 24 CONGREGATIONAL]\n\n[Illustration: MAP 25 EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION]\n\n\nIn Table E the Protestant churches are grouped according to their polity.\nIt will be seen that about 1,600 have a Congregational form of government,\nin which authority rests in the local church; that in nearly 1,200\nchurches the polity is Presbyterian, in which authority is largely in the\nlocal church, but partly in a representative body of several churches\ngrouped in districts. Under the title of \"Episcopal Bodies\" are grouped\ndenominations comprising 2,721 churches, or more than the total number of\nthe Presbyterian and Congregational combined.\n\nThe Methodist Protestant Churches are not placed in either of these groups\nbecause their polity resembles, in some respects, that of the\nCongregational and in others that of the Episcopal churches. Authority\nwith them rests largely in the local church, which owns its property and\nhas authority to receive and dismiss its own members, but in other\nrespects resembles closely the churches of the Episcopal order. In the\nfourth group are 82 other churches or religious organizations which we\nhave failed to classify. The Catholic bodies, including Greek and Russian,\nnumber 253.\n\nDifferences as to church polity are not sufficiently great to constitute a\ndangerous obstacle to the progress of church unity among the Protestant\nrural churches of Ohio. Our system of universities and public schools,\ntogether with the custom of reading religious articles, books, and other\nliterature without regard to the denomination of the author, is tending to\nremove theological differences as between denominations. It may be said it\nhas already removed them in the eleven denominations represented in the\nCommittee of Interchurch Cooperation. This is true whatever differences\nmay still exist between individuals.\n\n\nTABLE E\n\nCHURCHES GROUPED ACCORDING TO THEIR POLITY\n\n\nCONGREGATIONAL BODIES\n\n Total 1,601\n Baptist, including Free, Free Will and Missionary 379\n Disciples 367\n Christian 228\n Congregational 135\n Christian Union 92\n Friends 84\n Mennonite 56\n Church of God 54\n Union 40\n Universalist 39\n Colored Baptist 38\n Disciples, Non-Progressive 32\n Primitive Baptist 21\n Seventh Day Advent 13\n Advent Christian 12\n United Baptist 5\n Nazarene 5\n Seventh Day Baptist 1\n\n\nPRESBYTERIAN BODIES\n\n Total 1,192\n Presbyterian 396\n Lutheran 362\n Reformed, including German Reformed 175\n Brethren (German Baptist) 113\n United Presbyterian 77\n German Evangelical 48\n Calvinist Methodist 12\n Reformed Presbyterian 8\n Slavic Lutheran 1\n\n\nEPISCOPAL BODIES\n\n Total 2,721\n Methodist Episcopal 1,793\n United Brethren 521\n Evangelical Association 129\n Radical United Brethren 95\n African Methodist Episcopal 40\n Protestant Episcopal 39\n United Evangelical 27\n German Methodist Episcopal 27\n Free Methodist 27\n Wesleyan Methodist 27\n Moravian 4\n Primitive Methodist 1\n\n\nCATHOLIC BODIES\n\n Total 253\n Catholic (Roman) 248\n Greek Catholic 4\n Russian Catholic 1\n\n\nOTHER BODIES\n\n Total 293\n Methodist Protestant 211\n Holiness 25\n Brethren (O. O., Prog. and River) 21\n Latter Day Saints 6\n Saints 5\n Christian Missionary Alliance 4\n Christian Science 3\n International Bible Students Association 3\n Federated 3\n Missionary Church Association 2\n Pietist 1\n Wengerite 1\n Seven Sleepers 1\n Denomination not reported 7\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTABULAR SUMMARIES FOR THE STATE\n\n\nThere are in Ohio 1,343 townships (see Table I) which are wholly or partly\nmade up of open country or villages of less than 2,500 inhabitants. (This\nnumber of inhabitants having been selected by the United States Census as\nmarking the line between urban and rural, we have necessarily followed.)\nIn the strictly rural townships and the rural sections of townships which\nare partly urban or suburban, there is altogether a population of more\nthan two million persons, and 6,642 churches. These figures give us, on an\naverage, 1,516 persons and five rural churches to a township, and 307\npersons to a church.\n\nOf townships which border on cities and towns of more than 2,500 persons,\nthere are 173. In townships of this class there are 342,077 persons and\n582 churches, while for each township there are 1,977 persons and three\nchurches, or 587 persons to a church. It is presumable that many persons\nin these suburban townships attend the churches in the neighboring cities\nor large towns.\n\nIf we subtract the suburban townships from the 1,343 mentioned above,\nthere remain 1,170 townships which are strictly rural. Unless otherwise\nstated all deductions have been drawn exclusively from these rural\ntownships. The 1,170 strictly rural townships contain nearly 1,700,000\npersons and 6,060 churches. They have, on an average, 1,448 persons and\nfive churches to a township and 280 persons to a church.\n\nAlthough there are 6,060 churches in the 1,170 strictly rural townships,\ntheir membership records are so often incomplete that satisfactory figures\nwere found for only 4,941 churches. The membership of 3,351 of these\nchurches, or 68 per cent, is not more than 100; in 2,704, or 55 per cent,\nthe membership is not more than 75; while in 1,817, or 37 per cent, the\nmembership is not more than 50. (See Table II.)\n\n\nTABLE I\n\nPOPULATION, AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS AND CHURCHES, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF\nPERSONS TO A CHURCH, BY TOWNSHIPS\n\n 1 _Strictly rural townships_\n 2 _Other rural sections_\n 3 _All rural sections_\n\n 1 2 3\n Number of townships 1,170 173 1,343\n Population of rural townships 1,693,951 342,077 2,036,028\n Number persons per township 1,448 1,977 1,516\n Number churches per township 5 3 5\n Number of churches 6,060 582 6,642\n Number persons per church 280 587 307\n\nIn the suburban rural townships and rural sections of townships containing\ncities and large towns, 72 per cent of the churches have a membership of\nnot more than 100, 56 per cent of not more than 75, and 34 per cent of not\nmore than 50. Altogether, in rural townships and rural sections of other\ntownships, there are 5,392 churches out of 6,642 for which membership data\nare available. Of these 3,776, or 68 per cent, have a membership of not\nmore than 100; 2,956, or 55 per cent, a membership of not more than 75;\nand 1,860, or 36 per cent, have a membership of not more than 50.\n\nThe number of churches in rural townships whose membership records are not\navailable is 6,060 less 4,941, or 1,119. If we apply to these also the\npercentages just given for the churches with available membership records,\nwe find that of the total of 6,060 churches in the strictly rural\ntownships, 4,110 have a membership of not more than 100; 3,316 have a\nmembership of not more than 75; while 2,227 have a membership of not more\nthan 50. Since the larger churches as a rule are more careful in keeping\ntheir records than the smaller ones, the conclusions drawn from these\ncalculations are well within the limits of truth.\n\nBy the same method we find that in the suburban rural townships and rural\nsections of townships containing cities and towns of more than 2,500\ninhabitants, 419 of the 582 churches have a membership of 100 or less; 325\nof 75 or less; while 198 churches have a membership of 50 or less. We\ntherefore calculate that of 6,642, or all the rural churches, 4,529 or 68\nper cent have a membership of not more than 100; 3,641, or 55 per cent, a\nmembership of not more than 75; and 2,425 or 37 per cent a membership of\nnot more than 50.\n\n\nTABLE II\n\nCHURCHES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF THEIR MEMBERS\n\n Key:\n 1 _Rural townships_\n 2 _Per cent_\n 3 _Other rural sections_\n 4 _Per cent_\n 5 _All sections_\n 6 _Per cent_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5 6\n No. churches whose membership\n is reported 4,941 100 451 100 5,392 100\n No. of these whose membership\n is less than 101 3,351 67.8 325 72 3,676 68\n No. of these whose membership\n is less than 76 2,704 54.7 252 56 2,956 55\n No. of these whose membership\n is less than 51 1,817 36.7 153 34 1,860 36\n No. churches whose membership\n data are not available 1,119 18 131 23 1,250 19\n Calculated minimum number of\n churches whose membership\n is less than 101 4,110* 68 419* 72 4,529 68\n Calculated minimum number of\n churches whose membership\n is less than 76 3,316* 55 325* 56 3,641 55\n Calculated minimum number of\n churches whose membership\n is less than 51 2,227* 37 198* 34 2,425 37\n No. churches reporting whose\n membership is from 1 to 25 651 13 45 10 696 13\n No. churches reporting whose\n membership is from 26-50 1,116 23 108 24 1,274 24\n No. churches reporting whose\n membership is from 51-75 887 18 99 22 986 18\n\n *Note: Reckoned as follows: 3351 + .678 x 1119 = 4110\n 2704 + .547 x 1119 = 3316\n 1817 + .367 x 1119 = 2227\n\n 325 + .72 x 131 = 419\n 252 + .56 x 131 = 325\n 153 + .34 x 131 = 198\n\n No. churches reporting whose\n membership is from 76-100 647 13 73 16 720 13\n No. churches reporting whose\n membership is 101-150 757 15 62 14 819 15\n No. churches reporting whose\n membership is from 151-200 375 8 32 7 407 8\n No. churches reporting whose\n membership is more than 200 458 9 32 7 490 9\n Calculated number of churches\n whose membership is more\n than 200 561 9 40 7 601 9\n\nIn 313, or 27 per cent, of the strictly rural townships, no church has a\nresident minister (see Table III); in 575, or 39 per cent of the villages,\nno church has a resident minister; and in 4,007, or 66 per cent, of the\nchurches, there is no resident minister. Only 982 churches, or 16 per\ncent, have the full time service of a minister; 1,581 churches, or 26 per\ncent, have one-half the service of a minister; 5,026, or 83 per cent, have\none-half time service or less; 3,445, or 57 per cent, have one-third time\nservice or less; 2,320, or 39 per cent, have one-fourth time service or\nless; while 721, or 12 per cent of the 6,060 churches in the strictly\nrural townships have no regular service of a minister at all.\n\nThe percentages do not materially differ in the suburban townships. In the\ncombined total of 1,343 rural townships and suburban townships which\ncontain sections of open country and villages of less than 2,500\ninhabitants, we find that 335, or 25 per cent, of the townships have no\nchurches served by a resident minister; that in 634, or 40 per cent, of\nthe villages there is no resident minister; that 4,431, or 67 per cent, of\nthe churches have no resident minister; that only 1,065 churches, or 16\nper cent, have the full time service of a minister; that 1,766, or 27 per\ncent, have one-half the service of a minister; that 5,521, or 84 per cent,\nhave one-half time service or less; that 3,755, or 57 per cent, have\none-third time service or less; that 2,518, or 38 per cent, have\none-fourth time service or less; while 755, or 11 per cent, of the 6,642\ncountry churches of Ohio, have no regular service of a minister at all.\n\n\nTABLE III\n\nAMOUNT OF MINISTERIAL SERVICE BY TOWNSHIPS, VILLAGES AND CHURCHES\n\n Key:\n 1 _Rural townships_\n 2 _Per cent_\n 3 _Other rural sections_\n 4 _Per cent_\n 5 _All rural sections_\n 6 _Per cent_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5 6\n No. townships whose churches are\n without resident ministers 313 27 22 12 335 25\n No. villages which have a\n resident minister 901 61 54 48 955 60\n No. villages without a resident\n minister 575 39 58.5 52 634 40\n No. churches with resident\n minister 2,053 34 158 28 2,211 33\n No. churches without resident\n minister 4,007 66 424 74 4,431 67\n No. churches with full time\n service of a minister 982 16 83 14 1,065 16\n No. churches with 1/2 time\n service of a minister 1,581 26 185 32 1,766 27\n No. churches with 1/2 time\n service of a minister or less 5,026 83 495 85 5,521 84\n No. churches with 1/3 time\n service of a minister or less 3,445 57 310 53 3,755 56.5\n No. churches with 1/4 time\n service of a minister or less 2,320 39 198 34 2,518 38\n No. churches with no regular\n service of a minister 721 12 62 11 755 11\n No. churches with 1/3 time\n service of a minister 1,125 19 112 19 1,237 19\n No. churches with 1/4 time\n service of a minister 970 16 96 16 1,066 16\n No. churches for which data are\n not available 52 1 4 1 56 1\n\nOf the 6,060 churches in the wholly rural townships, 3,253, or 54 per\ncent, are in villages whose inhabitants number from 51 to 2,500 persons,\nwhile 2,807, or 46 per cent, are in the open country. (See Table IV.) In\nthe suburban rural townships 198, or 34 per cent, of the churches are in\nvillages containing from 51 to 2,500 persons, while 384, or 66 per cent,\nare in the open country.\n\nOf the 6,642 country churches in Ohio, therefore, 3,451, or 52 per cent,\nare in villages containing from 51 to 2,500 inhabitants, and 3,191, or 48\nper cent, in the open country.\n\nIn the strictly rural districts, 1,207, or 20 per cent, of the churches\nare in villages or towns of moderate size, having from 501 to 2,500\ninhabitants, while 2,046, or 34 per cent, are in small villages of from 51\nto 500. No less than 4,853, or 80 per cent, of the churches in the\nstrictly rural districts are either in the open country or in the small\nvillages of 500 inhabitants or less. In addressing ourselves to the rural\nchurch problem, therefore, we are almost exclusively concerned with the\nsmaller villages and the open country.\n\n\nTABLE IV\n\nNUMBER OF CHURCHES IN VILLAGES AND IN THE OPEN COUNTRY\n\n Key:\n 1 _Rural townships_\n 2 _Per cent_\n 3 _Other rural sections_\n 4 _Per cent_\n 5 _All rural sections_\n 6 _Per cent_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5 6\n No. churches in villages containing\n from 51 to 2,500 persons 3,253 54 198 34 3,451 52\n No. churches in open country 2,807 46 384 66 3,191 48\n No. churches in villages or towns\n having from 501 to 2,500\n inhabitants 1,207 20 76 13 1,283 19\n No. churches in villages having\n from 51 to 500 inhabitants 2,046 34 122 21 2,168 33\n No. churches in open country and\n in villages having less than\n 501 inhabitants 4,853 80 506 87 5,359 81\n\nWe have assumed 50 persons as the line which separates a small village\nfrom the open country, just as the United States Census has assumed 2,500\npersons as the lower limit of the town. In rural Ohio there are 1,477\nvillages whose inhabitants number 51 to 2,500 persons. (See Table V.) Of\nthese, 673, or 46 per cent, have from 51 to 200 inhabitants; 487, or 33\nper cent, have from 201 to 500 inhabitants; while 317, or 21 per cent,\nhave more than 500 persons.\n\nOf the smallest villages, or those of 51 to 200 persons, 234, or 35 per\ncent, have one or more ministers living near the church he serves and 270\nministers in all; while 440, or 65 per cent, have no resident ministers\nwhatever.\n\nIn the 487 country villages whose inhabitants number from 201 to 500\npersons, 360, or 74 per cent, have one or more ministers and 527 ministers\nin all, while there are 127, or 26 per cent, without resident ministers.\nOf the 317 villages whose inhabitants number more than 500 persons, 308,\nor 97 per cent, have one or more resident pastors and altogether 896\nministers--(which is 53 per cent of the whole number of ministers living\nin villages), while only 9, or 3 per cent, are without any ministers at\nall.\n\nOf the 1,477 country villages of all sizes, 901, or 61 per cent, have one\nor more resident ministers and in all 1,693 ministers, while 576, or 39\nper cent, of the villages have no minister living in them.\n\nThese 1,477 villages have only 3,253, or 54 per cent, of the churches, but\nthey have 1,693, or 82 per cent, of the ministers; while the open country,\nwith 2,807, or 46 per cent, of the churches, has only 360, or 18 per cent,\nof the resident ministers. More than 87 per cent of the open country\nchurches, or 2,447 of them, are without a resident minister.\n\nIn addition to the ministers here included, there are about 350 who do not\nlive near any one of their churches, but for the most part in the cities\nand towns. This number includes many student preachers.\n\nOn Map 26, page 117, the distribution of the villages is represented\ngraphically.\n\n\n[Illustration: MAP 26 VILLAGES AND CITIES]\n\n\nTABLE V\n\nRESIDENT MINISTERS IN STRICTLY RURAL TOWNSHIPS, IN THE OPEN COUNTRY, AND\nIN VILLAGES\n\n Key:\n 1 _Villages of 51-2500 persons_\n 2 _Per cent_\n 3 _Villages of 51-200 persons_\n 4 _Per cent_\n 5 _Villages of 201-500 persons_\n 6 _Per cent_\n 7 _Villages of 501-2500 persons_\n 8 _Per cent_\n 9 _Villages of 201-2500 persons_\n 10 _Per cent_\n 11 _Open country_\n 12 _Per cent_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5 6\n No. of villages 1,476.5 100 673 46 487 33\n No. of villages\n with ministers 901 61 233.5 35 360 74\n No. of ministers 1,693 (31) 270 16 527 31\n No. of villages\n without ministers 575.5 39 439.5 65 127 26\n No. of churches 3,253 54 984 16 1,062 18\n\n\n 7 8 9 10 11 12\n No. of villages 316.5 21 803.5 54\n No. of villages\n with ministers 307.5 97 667.5 83\n No. of ministers 896 53 1,423 (69) 360 8\n No. of villages\n without ministers 9 3 136 9\n No. of churches 1,207 20 2,269 37 2,807 46\n\nIt has not been possible to collect full data as to the length of the\nrural minister's service. But the Conference Records give these data for\nthe ministers of the Methodist Episcopal churches. The terms of service of\nthese ministers are not more brief than those in most of the other\ndenominations.\n\nIn the Methodist Episcopal Church in Ohio there were, at the time of the\nAnnual Conference in the autumn of 1917, 664 pastors of country churches\n(see Table VI); 490, or 74 per cent of them, were about to begin their\nfirst or second year's service in their charges; only 174, or 26 per cent,\nhad had two years' acquaintance with their parishes; 318, or 48 per cent,\nwere beginning their first year of service in their charges; 172, or 26\nper cent, were beginning their second year; 110, or 16 per cent, were\nbeginning their third year; while there were only 64, or less than 10 per\ncent, who had been as long as three years in the parishes they were\nserving. Only 8, or a little more than 1 per cent, had served as long as\nfive years in their parishes, while only one man had served more than\nseven years.\n\n\nTABLE VI\n\nTERMS OF SERVICE OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL COUNTRY MINISTERS, 1917\n\n Key:\n 1 _State of Ohio_\n 2 _Per cent_\n 3 _Ohio Conference_\n 4 _West Ohio Conference_\n 5 _Northeast Ohio Conference_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5\n Total number of ministers 664 100 144 226 294\n No. beginning 1st or 2nd year\n of service in their charges 490 74 115 161 214\n No. beginning their 1st year\n of service in their charges 318 48 78 97 143\n No. beginning their 2nd year\n of service in their charges 172 26 37 64 71\n No. beginning their 3rd year\n of service in their charges 110 16 20 37 53\n No. who have been two years\n or more in their charges 174 26 29 65 80\n No. who had served three\n years or more in their\n present charges 64 10 9 28 27\n No. who had served four years\n or more in their present\n charges 18 3 3 2 13\n No. who had served five years\n or more in their present\n charges 8 1 2 1 5\n No. who had served six years\n or more in their present Less\n charges 3 than 0 0 3\n one\n No. who had served seven\n years or more in their\n present charges 1 \" 0 0 1\n No. who had served eight\n years or more in their\n present charges 1 \" 0 0 1\n\nIn Table VII it appears that in 2 of the 1,170 strictly rural townships\nthere is a church for each 99 persons or less; that in 227 townships there\nare from 100 to 199 persons to a church; that in 446 there are from 200 to\n299 persons; that in 270 townships there are from 300 to 399; that in 122\ntownships there are from 400 to 499; that in 53 townships there are from\n500 to 599; and that in 45 townships there are 600 persons or more to a\nchurch.\n\nIn other words, in 675, or 58 per cent, of the townships, there are less\nthan 300 persons, men, women, and children, to a church; in 945, or 81 per\ncent, of the townships, there are less than 400; in 1,067, or 91 per cent,\nthere are less than 500; while in 103, or only 9 per cent, there are more\nthan 500 persons to a church.\n\n\nTABLE VII\n\nAVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO A CHURCH IN 1,170 RURAL TOWNSHIPS\n\n Average No. of persons No. of Per cent\n to a church townships\n 1-99 2 Less than 1\n 100-199 227 19\n 200-299 446 38\n 300-399 270 23\n 400-499 122 10\n 500-599 53 5\n More than 599 45 4\n Townships without any church 5 Less than 1\n Less than 300 to a church 675 58\n Less than 400 to a church 945 81\n Less than 500 to a church 1,067 91\n More than 500 to a church 103 9\n\nIn Table VIII a comparison is made between city and country. According to\nthe United States Census of 1910 the population of Ohio numbered\n4,767,121, the churches 9,890, or 482 persons to a church. According to\nthe data gathered in this survey in the 1,170 strictly rural townships the\nchurches number 6,060. In 1910 the population in these townships numbered\n1,693,894. Assuming that there has been no change in the population since\n1910, there is now one church for each 280 persons. But from 1900 to 1910\nthere was a decline of more than 3 per cent in the population of these\ntownships. If we assume that this decline has continued since 1910 there\nare to-day on the average less than 280 men, women, and children, church\npeople and non-church people, to give and do all that must be given and\ndone for each country church in Ohio. In such a state of facts, poverty\nand weakness are inevitable.\n\nUpon the same assumption of no change in population or number of churches\nsince 1910, there are in the 173 suburban townships 342,077 persons and\n582 churches, or 587 persons to a church, while in the large towns and\ncities there are 2,731,150 persons and only 3,248 churches, or 841 persons\nto a church.\n\nAs compared with the city church the country church obviously has a very\nmuch smaller opportunity to enlarge its attendance and increase its\nsupport and membership until some method of combining country churches\nshall have been put into successful operation.\n\n\nTABLE VIII\n\nAVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO A CHURCH\n\n Key:\n 1 _State of Ohio_\n 2 _1,170 strictly rural townships_\n 3 _173 suburban townships_\n 4 _Large towns and cities_\n\n 1 2 3 4\n Population 4,767,121 1,693,894 342,077 2,731,150\n No. of churches 9,890 6,060 582 3,248\n No. of persons to a church 482 280 587 841\n\nComplete data for ministers' salaries are not available, but the amount of\nthe minister's pay is indicated by the figures in the official records of\nthe two denominations which have the largest number of rural churches.\nThere were in 1917, 688 pastors of rural churches of the Methodist\nEpiscopal Church. (See Table IX.) These received, on an average, $993 per\nyear, or $857 and free use of parsonage. Six hundred and sixty-two\nministers, or 96 per cent, received less than $1,500 per year; 513, or 75\nper cent, received less than $1,200 per year; while 303, or 44 per cent,\nreceived less than $1,000.\n\nIn the United Brethren Church, according to the records of its\nConferences, in 1917 there were 188 pastors of rural churches. (See Table\nX.) Their average salary was $787, or $680 and free use of parsonage; not\none received as much as $1,500 salary; 171, or all but 17, received less\nthan $1,200; while 135, or 72 per cent, received less than $1,000.\n\nNot only are ministers given inadequate pay, but the rate of its increase\nin relation to the increase in the cost of living gives no promise of its\nbecoming adequate.\n\nIn the Ohio Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church the average\nsalary of the country minister in 1905 was $733, including the estimated\nrental value of parsonage, while in 1915 it was $915, making an increase\nof $182, or 25 per cent, in ten years. During the same period, however,\naccording to data supplied by the United States Bureau of Labor\nStatistics, the retail prices of food consumed by the ordinary\nworkingman's family in the nation increased no less than 37 per cent.\n\nIt is probable, on the other hand, that the farmers have a constantly\nincreasing ability to pay, for in the ten-year period from 1900 to 1910\nthere was, according to the United States Census reports, an increase in\nthe total value of farm property in the State of nearly 60 per cent.\n\n\nTABLE IX\n\nSALARIES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL COUNTRY MINISTERS, 1917\n\n Key:\n 1 _No. of ministers_\n 2 _Average salary (including estimated rental value of parsonage)_\n 3 _No. of charges giving salaries less than $1,500_\n 4 _Per cent_\n 5 _No. of charges giving salaries less than $1,200_\n 6 _Per cent_\n 7 _No. of charges giving salaries less than $1,000_\n 8 _Per cent_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8\n State 688 $993 662 96 513 75 303 44\n Ohio Conference 151 $972 145 96 110 73 79 52\n West Ohio Conference 237 $1,004 230 97 184 78 87 37\n Northeast Ohio\n Conference 300 $995 287 96 219 73 137 46\n\n\nTABLE X\n\nSALARIES OF COUNTRY MINISTERS, UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST, 1917\n\n Key:\n 1 _No. of ministers_\n 2 _Average salaries (including estimated rental value of parsonage)_\n 3 _Salaries less than $1,500_\n 4 _Per cent_\n 5 _Salaries less than $1,200_\n 6 _Per cent_\n 7 _Salaries less than $1,000_\n 8 _Per cent_\n\n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8\n State 188 $787 188 100 171 91 135 72\n Sandusky Conference 63 $866 63 100 58 92 39 62\n Southeast Ohio\n Conference 47 $687 47 100 43 91 37 79\n Miami Conference 42 $779 42 100 37 88 30 71\n East Ohio Conference 36 $787 36 100 33 92 29 80\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTABULAR SUMMARY BY COUNTIES\n\n\nTable F is a summary of the principal facts disclosed by this\ninvestigation. These facts are given for the strictly rural townships in\neach of the different counties. They do not include the urban or suburban\ntownships. Being intended to present the facts only as to the rural part\nof each county, they should not be used as representing entire counties or\nthe State as a whole.\n\nIn the ten-year period from 1900 to 1910 there was a decline in the\npopulation of the strictly rural townships of 3.6 per cent. In only 21\ncounties out of the total of 88 did the rural townships increase in\npopulation, and most of these are in mining and manufacturing regions. In\nthe strictly agricultural parts of Franklin, Fairfield, Miami and Licking\nCounties there was an increase of from 2 to 5 per cent, in Medina and\nWayne of less than 1 per cent. In the other 67 counties there was a\ndecline, ranging all the way from 1 per cent in Erie, Geauga, and Hamilton\nto 17 per cent in Paulding. The average population of the strictly rural\ntownships varies from 904 in Knox County to 2,743 in Miami, and averages\n1,448 for the State.\n\nThe number of rural churches for a county varies from 32 in Sandusky and\nLake Counties to 130 in Washington. The number of churches to a township\nis five for the State, but varies from 3 in Portage, Huron, Delaware,\nGeauga, Cuyahoga, and Ashtabula Counties to 9 in Allen and Stark. The\naverage number of persons to each country church is 280 for the State, but\nvaries from 182 in Vinton County to 433 in Cuyahoga. The number of open\ncountry churches varies from 5 in Butler County to 82 in Washington.\n\nThe number of churches with a resident minister varies from 9 in Jackson\nCounty to 45 in Wood. The number of churches without a resident minister\nvaries from 17 in Lake County to 103 in Washington. Those with full time\nservice of a minister vary in number from 1 in Pickaway, Noble, and\nJackson Counties to 25 in Columbiana and Wayne. In one county, Wyandot,\nthere are no churches without some part of a minister's time. In Clermont\nCounty there are no less than 30 of them.\n\n\nTABLE F\n\nSUMMARY BY COUNTIES OF DATA FOR THE 1,170 STRICTLY RURAL TOWNSHIPS\n\n(Excluding townships in which the population is urban, in which are\nvillages of more than 2,500 inhabitants or in which are parts of large\ntown or city parishes, and those which border on cities and large towns.)\n\n 1. Population for 1910.\n 2. Population for 1900.\n 3. Per cent increase (+) or decrease (-).\n\n 4. No. of strictly rural townships.\n 5. Average No. of persons to a township.\n 6. No. of churches.\n 7. Average No. of churches to a township.\n 8. Average No. of persons to a church.\n\n 9. No. of churches with a resident minister.\n 10. No. of churches without a resident minister.\n 11. No. of churches with full time service of a minister.\n 12. No. of churches with 1/2 of a minister's service.\n 13. No. of churches with 1/3 of a minister's service.\n 14. No. of churches with 1/4 of a minister's service.\n 15. No. of churches with less than 1/4 of a minister's service.\n 16. No. of churches with no regular service of a minister.\n 17. No. of churches for which ministerial service data are not\n available.\n\n 18. No. of churches with from 1 to 25 members.\n 19. No. of churches with from 26 to 50 members.\n 20. No. of churches with from 51 to 75 members.\n 21. No. of churches with from 76 to 100 members.\n 22. No. of churches with from 101 to 150 members.\n 23. No. of churches with from 151 to 200 members.\n 24. No. of churches with more than 200 members.\n 25. No. of churches whose membership is not reported.\n\n 26. No. of churches in villages containing from 51 to 2,500 inhabitants.\n 27. No. of churches in the open country (including villages of less than\n 51 inhabitants).\n\n 28. No. of townships from 1 to 100 persons to a church.\n 29. No. of townships with from 101 to 200 persons to a church.\n 30. No. of townships with from 201 to 300 persons to a church.\n 31. No. of townships with from 301 to 400 persons to a church.\n 32. No. of townships with from 401 to 500 persons to a church.\n 33. No. of townships with from 501 to 600 persons to a church.\n 34. No. of townships with more than 600 persons to a church.\n\n 35. No. of villages containing from 51 to 200 inhabitants.\n 36. No. of villages containing from 51 to 200 inhabitants having a\n resident minister.\n 37. No. of ministers resident in villages containing from 51 to 200\n inhabitants.\n 38. No. of villages containing from 201 to 500 inhabitants.\n 39. No. of villages containing from 201 to 500 inhabitants having a\n resident minister.\n 40. No. of ministers resident in villages containing from 201 to 500\n inhabitants.\n\n 41. No. of villages of more than 500 inhabitants.\n 42. No. of villages of more than 500 inhabitants having a resident\n minister.\n 43. No. of ministers resident in villages of more than 500 inhabitants.\n\n 44. No. of villages of 201 to 2,500 inhabitants without a church.\n 45. No. of villages of 51 to 200 inhabitants without a church.\n\n\n Key:\n A _State_\n B _Adams_\n C _Allen_\n D _Ashland_\n E _Ashtabula_\n F _Athens_\n G _Auglaize_\n H _Belmont_\n\n A B C D E F G H\n (1) 1,693,951 24,755 14,820 15,046 24,420 17,372 15,803 33,216\n (2) 1,752,934 26,328 15,252 15,860 23,617 16,353 16,971 26,003\n (3) -3.3 -8 -5 -5 +3.3 +6 -7 +27.5\n\n (4) 1,170 14 7 14 24 11 11 13\n (5) 1,448 1,768 2,117 1,075 1,018 1,579 1,437 2,555\n (6) 6,060 93 62 65 78 76 44 96\n (7) 5 7 9 5 3 7 4 7\n (8) 280 266 237 231 313 229 359 352\n\n (9) 2,053 24 25 35 36 16 14 30\n (10) 4,007 69 37 30 42 60 30 66\n\n (11) 982 11 11 18 24 2 10 14\n (12) 1,581 15 21 24 19 2 10 27\n (13) 1,125 28 17 14 16 10 7 15\n (14) 970 10 9 4 8 18 12 10\n (15) 629 12 1 0 0 30 2 14\n (16) 721 17 3 5 11 14 1 16\n (17) 52 0 0 0 0 0 2 0\n\n (18) 651 12 6 5 15 19 0 7\n (19) 1,166 24 17 4 18 23 16 17\n (20) 887 16 9 14 16 17 5 14\n (21) 647 5 7 9 6 9 4 16\n (22) 757 11 9 12 11 4 3 8\n (23) 375 4 8 6 3 0 2 8\n (24) 458 7 6 5 5 0 5 13\n (25) 1,119 14 0 10 4 4 9 13\n\n (26) 3,253 37 32 38 50 36 25 61\n (27) 2,807 56 30 27 28 41 19 35\n\n (28) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 227 1 2 3 4 7 0 2\n (30) 446 8 4 6 6 3 6 4\n (31) 270 4 1 3 8 0 2 1\n (32) 122 0 0 2 3 0 1 5\n (33) 53 1 0 0 1 1 1 0\n (34) 45 0 0 0 2 0 1 1\n\n (35) 677 9 2 5 15.5 9 5 13\n (36) 233.5 1 1 3 6.5 2 1 4\n (37) 271 1 1 5 8 2 1 4\n (38) 488 5 5 6 11 9 5 8\n (39) 360 2 5 5 8 6 3 7\n (40) 536 4 10 13 13 11 4 8\n\n (41) 317.5 4 2 2 4 2 3 8\n (42) 307.5 4 2 2 4 2 3 7\n (43) 896 14 9 10 11 4 6 18\n\n (44) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (45) 115 2 0 1 0 0 1 1\n\n\n Key:\n A _Brown_\n B _Butler_\n C _Carroll_\n D _Champaign_\n E _Clark_\n F _Clermont_\n G _Clinton_\n H _Columbiana_\n\n A B C D E F G H\n (1) 24,832 11,045 15,761 17,428 16,435 29,551 17,465 19,890\n (2) 28,237 12,436 11,854 18,626 17,078 31,610 18,779 20,260\n (3) -12 -11 +33 -6.4 -3.5 -6.7 -6.9 -2\n\n (4) 16 7 14 11 9 14 12 12\n (5) 1,552 1,578 1,126 1,584 1,826 2,111 1,455 1,657\n (6) 79 36 58 60 56 119 52 69\n (7) 5 5 4 5 6 8 4 6\n (8) 314 307 272 290 293 249 336 288\n\n (9) 22 16 21 23 22 32 26 32\n (10) 57 20 37 37 34 87 26 37\n (11) 10 9 5 12 14 13 22 25\n (12) 23 13 19 20 11 31 9 19\n (13) 14 8 13 11 15 16 5 9\n (14) 14 0 12 6 10 14 6 6\n (15) 10 2 5 4 1 15 6 0\n (16) 8 3 4 7 5 30 4 10\n (17) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0\n\n (18) 10 4 2 3 3 25 1 5\n (19) 15 3 11 7 8 36 6 7\n (20) 9 4 7 8 6 23 8 13\n (21) 12 5 4 4 9 5 2 9\n (22) 13 6 10 11 8 6 8 16\n (23) 4 2 8 2 2 8 4 5\n (24) 7 3 3 5 6 9 6 10\n (25) 9 9 13 20 14 7 17 4\n\n (26) 41 31 37 35 36 83 40 43\n (27) 38 5 21 25 20 36 12 26\n\n (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 1 0 3 0 1 6 0 0\n (30) 8 4 5 7 4 4 3 7\n (31) 5 2 3 3 2 3 6 4\n (32) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0\n (33) 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1\n (34) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0\n (35) 8 6 6 10 7 24 10 8\n (36) 4 2 2 4 3 4 3 5\n (37) 4 2 2 5 3 5 3 6\n (38) 5 7 4 4 8.5 8 6.5 8\n (39) 4 5 3 4 6 6 5.5 5\n (40) 6 7 7 6 10 7 8 7\n\n (41) 5 1 3.5 3 2 7 3 2\n (42) 5 1 3 3 2 7 3 2\n (43) 10 5 11 9 7 17 11 9\n\n (44) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (45) 1 3 1 0 2 3 0 5\n\n\n Key:\n A _Coshocton_\n B _Crawford_\n C _Cuyahoga_\n D _Darke_\n E _Defiance_\n F _Delaware_\n G _Erie_\n H _Fairfield_\n\n A B C D E F G H\n (1) 19,324 12,749 19,928 30,702 15,618 17,110 14,804 17,193\n (2) 20,998 14,225 17,466 31,293 17,081 17,461 14,923 16,756\n (3) -8 -10.5 +14 -1.8 -8.5 -2 -1 +2\n\n (4) 21 13 14 18 10 17 9 9\n (5) 920 981 1,423 1,706 1,562 1,006 1,645 1,821\n (6) 81 51 46 96 62 59 41 74\n (7) 4 4 3 5 6 3 5 8\n (8) 239 250 433 320 252 290 361 222\n\n (9) 17 18 23 36 16 14 25 22\n (10) 64 33 23 60 46 45 16 52\n (11) 5 13 15 22 11 6 15 4\n (12) 22 12 23 26 9 24 20 18\n (13) 9 13 2 14 14 14 2 16\n (14) 27 6 0 17 9 7 0 29\n (15) 10 5 0 5 13 0 0 6\n (16) 7 1 5 11 5 8 4 1\n (17) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0\n\n (18) 6 1 4 3 13 9 5 7\n (19) 10 12 12 18 17 10 7 14\n (20) 11 7 3 18 6 9 1 12\n (21) 10 7 7 13 5 12 3 9\n (22) 11 8 5 16 5 9 9 16\n (23) 3 2 2 7 0 2 1 6\n (24) 4 5 4 10 5 3 3 4\n (25) 26 9 9 11 11 5 12 6\n\n (26) 47 21 30 51 23 30 33 37\n (27) 34 30 16 45 39 29 8 37\n\n (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 6 5 0 1 2 4 0 2\n (30) 6 4 4 5 5 3 3 7\n (31) 8 3 3 8 3 5 3 0\n (32) 1 1 3 4 0 2 2 0\n (33) 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0\n (34) 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0\n\n (35) 20.5 8 5 14 2 9 6 5\n (36) 7 4 3 6 1 1 2 2\n (37) 9 4 4 8 1 1 2 2\n (38) 5.5 3 6 8.5 4 7 0 7\n (39) 2 2 5 4 0 6 0 6\n (40) 3 3 7 5 0 9 0 11\n\n (41) 2 1 3 4.5 2 2 6 3\n (42) 2 1 3 4.5 2 2 6 3\n (43) 5 4 6 10 8 3 21 8\n\n (44) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (45) 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 1\n\n\n Key:\n A _Fayette_\n B _Franklin_\n C _Fulton_\n D _Gallia_\n E _Geauga_\n F _Greene_\n G _Guernsey_\n H _Hamilton_\n\n A B C D E F G H\n (1) 12,342 25,246 19,531 19,546 14,670 17,724 21,701 13,487\n (2) 13,357 24,023 18,777 20,973 14,744 19,284 21,369 13,644\n (3) -8 +5 +4 -7 -1 -8 +2 -1\n\n (4) 9 14 11 14 16 11 17 6\n (5) 1,371 1,803 1,776 1,396 917 1,611 1,277 2,248\n (6) 48 73 56 99 40 64 81 40\n (7) 5 5 5 7 3 6 5 7\n (8) 257 346 349 197 367 277 268 337\n\n (9) 10 26 24 14 19 28 26 18\n (10) 38 47 32 85 21 36 55 22\n (11) 3 13 13 3 11 17 8 12\n (12) 8 12 15 7 9 19 22 7\n (13) 7 24 9 14 10 16 16 6\n (14) 10 18 10 13 0 5 21 6\n (15) 19 0 2 48 0 3 5 3\n (16) 1 5 4 14 10 4 8 6\n (17) 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0\n\n (18) 7 1 11 8 4 4 7 1\n (19) 13 8 7 29 12 9 14 5\n (20) 9 8 8 17 6 12 16 7\n (21) 6 10 6 12 2 8 15 1\n (22) 5 18 6 5 7 16 12 3\n (23) 2 2 4 2 3 3 9 4\n (24) 2 9 4 3 1 7 6 6\n (25) 4 17 10 23 5 5 2 13\n\n (26) 23 44 26 29 26 39 41 24\n (27) 25 29 30 70 14 25 40 16\n\n (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 2 0 1 7 1 2 5 1\n (30) 3 4 3 6 4 4 6 1\n (31) 3 6 3 1 4 4 2 2\n (32) 1 1 2 0 3 0 3 2\n (33) 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0\n (34) 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 0\n\n (35) 7 6 1 13 5 5 7 4\n (36) 2 2 0 4 2 3 1 2\n (37) 2 2 0 4 3 3 1 2\n (38) 4 8 4 5 4 4.5 6 2\n (39) 2 5 3 4 4 3 6 1\n (40) 2 7 4 5 5 6 11 1\n\n (41) 2 5 4 0 3 4 6 4.5\n (42) 2 5 4 0 3 4 6 4.5\n (43) 4 14 17 0 8 16 13 11\n\n (44) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (45) 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 0\n\n\n Key:\n A _Hancock_\n B _Hardin_\n C _Harrison_\n D _Henry_\n E _Highland_\n F _Hocking_\n G _Holmes_\n H _Huron_\n\n A B C D E F G H\n (1) 17,782 20,863 19,076 19,988 17,382 16,934 17,909 15,532\n (2) 18,988 21,847 20,486 22,368 19,504 19,183 19,511 14,144\n (3) -7 -4 -6 -11 -11 -12 -8 +10\n\n (4) 14 13 15 12 15 10 14 15\n (5) 1,270 1,605 1,272 1,666 1,159 1,693 1,279 1,035\n (6) 78 66 73 63 69 72 62 49\n (7) 6 5 5 5 5 7 4 3\n (8) 228 316 261 317 252 235 289 317\n\n (9) 23 20 30 26 19 10 29 21\n (10) 55 46 43 37 50 62 33 28\n (11) 9 9 8 10 7 2 10 12\n (12) 22 14 26 18 11 6 35 23\n (13) 16 17 17 23 12 12 8 7\n (14) 26 8 20 6 15 7 1 3\n (15) 0 8 0 1 9 33 0 0\n (16) 5 8 2 4 12 10 8 4\n (17) 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 0\n\n (18) 8 1 5 8 4 5 10 7\n (19) 15 7 8 11 15 11 8 8\n (20) 15 10 14 10 10 7 5 7\n (21) 12 10 12 8 5 3 7 9\n (22) 17 5 16 7 7 2 11 7\n (23) 5 5 7 2 7 3 11 4\n (24) 4 6 9 8 4 1 9 2\n (25) 2 22 2 9 17 40 1 5\n\n (26) 30 30 49 39 36 22 29 35\n (27) 48 36 24 24 33 50 33 14\n\n (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 5 1 3 1 2 7 2 2\n (30) 7 4 6 5 8 1 7 4\n (31) 1 7 4 3 5 1 2 4\n (32) 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2\n (33) 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2\n (34) 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1\n (35) 5 3 7 6 11 1 5.5 6\n (36) 0 1 3 0 3 0 3.5 1\n (37) 0 1 4 0 3 0 4 1\n (38) 7 4 6 4 6 6 7.5 2\n (39) 7 3 4 2 6 2 7 1\n (40) 13 4 8 3 8 3 10 1\n\n (41) 2 5 6 5 2 3 1 5\n (42) 2 5 6 5 2 1 1 5\n (43) 7 13 17 17 5 3 5 17\n\n (44) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0\n (45) 0 2 1 4 3 0 0 1\n\n\n Key:\n A _Jackson_\n B _Jefferson_\n C _Knox_\n D _Lake_\n E _Lawrence_\n F _Licking_\n G _Logan_\n H _Lorain_\n I _Lucas_\n\n A B C D E F G H I\n (1) 10,996 29,262 18,989 13,326 23,202 28,573 20,331 22,167 14,230\n (2) 12,009 18,959 19,957 12,398 24,644 27,715 22,418 21,328 13,496\n (3) -8 +55 -5 +7 -6 +3 -10 +4 +5\n\n (4) 9 11 21 7 13 25 15 16 10\n (5) 1,222 2,660 904 1,904 1,785 1,143 1,355 1,385 1,423\n (6) 57 77 80 32 87 113 71 56 41\n (7) 6 7 4 5 7 5 5 4 4\n (8) 193 380 237 416 267 253 286 396 347\n\n (9) 9 33 25 15 16 34 32 31 16\n (10) 48 44 55 17 71 79 39 25 25\n (11) 1 11 10 9 5 17 19 22 6\n (12) 7 26 26 10 12 22 24 21 12\n (13) 6 11 18 9 12 24 11 6 16\n (14) 10 19 17 3 19 10 10 0 2\n (15) 12 3 0 0 30 14 0 0 0\n (16) 21 7 9 1 9 26 5 7 2\n (17) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3\n\n (18) 5 4 6 5 15 14 3 4 11\n (19) 10 15 6 10 28 26 17 9 8\n (20) 3 12 26 2 15 14 3 10 6\n (21) 0 4 12 2 13 18 7 4 1\n (22) 2 6 11 6 7 9 8 8 3\n (23) 1 8 8 1 3 5 6 2 2\n (24) 0 8 4 4 2 13 9 4 2\n (25) 36 20 7 2 4 14 18 15 8\n\n (26) 14 53 48 19 25 63 46 37 23\n (27) 43 24 32 13 62 50 25 19 18\n\n (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 6 3 9 0 2 8 2 1 0\n (30) 1 2 6 0 7 9 6 4 4\n (31) 1 2 2 5 1 6 5 3 1\n (32) 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 4 4\n (33) 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 3 1\n (34) 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0\n\n (35) 6 7 11 2.5 8 11 6.5 6 5\n (36) 4 2 5 0 2 4 0 3 4\n (37) 4 2 5 0 2 4 0 4 4\n (38) 0 6 7 2 4 8.5 5 3 1\n (39) 0 5 5 2 0 6 4 3 1\n (40) 0 6 9 2 0 10 7 5 1\n\n (41) 1 8 3 3 3 6 7 4 4\n (42) 1 8 3 3 3 6 7 4 4\n (43) 4 23 9 6 3 13 21 13 9\n\n (44) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (45) 0 3 0 0 2 3 0 2 0\n\n\n Key:\n A _Madison_\n B _Mahoning_\n C _Marion_\n D _Medina_\n E _Meigs_\n F _Mercer_\n G _Miami_\n H _Monroe_\n I _Montgomery_\n\n A B C D E F G H I\n (1) 15,363 19,007 13,758 15,158 16,162 22,852 20,654 19,940 18,642\n (2) 15,911 16,860 15,456 15,107 18,961 23,739 20,143 23,373 18,116\n (3) -3 +13 -11 +.3 -15 -4 +3 -15 +3\n\n (4) 13 12 14 14 11 13 8 17 8\n (5) 1,182 1,584 983 1,083 1,469 1,758 2,743 1,173 2,330\n (6) 46 66 56 52 91 82 69 93 62\n (7) 4 6 4 4 8 6 8 5 8\n (8) 334 288 246 292 178 279 318 214 301\n\n (9) 14 33 15 28 16 39 33 22 23\n (10) 32 33 41 24 75 43 36 71 39\n (11) 5 21 4 20 2 26 27 6 12\n (12) 12 25 13 19 10 21 23 15 26\n (13) 10 11 21 9 10 13 7 12 9\n (14) 13 4 11 0 19 14 5 25 7\n (15) 0 0 0 0 31 3 0 11 0\n (16) 5 5 6 4 19 2 7 24 8\n (17) 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0\n\n (18) 10 3 5 6 21 6 5 18 2\n (19) 5 10 10 13 35 12 5 23 9\n (20) 2 11 9 7 11 8 6 24 5\n (21) 10 13 7 6 6 10 10 8 9\n (22) 5 11 7 7 5 12 12 9 10\n (23) 0 5 2 5 1 5 3 4 6\n (24) 7 5 3 4 0 17 10 2 6\n (25) 7 8 13 4 12 12 18 5 15\n\n (26) 30 42 23 27 50 35 47 40 37\n (27) 16 24 33 25 40 47 23 53 25\n\n (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 1 3 2 2 8 1 1 7 1\n (30) 2 2 8 7 2 9 4 6 3\n (31) 6 3 3 2 1 1 2 4 0\n (32) 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 3\n (33) 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1\n (34) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n\n (35) 6 8 2 6 20 9 7 13 4\n (36) 1 4 0 5 4 3 2 6 1\n (37) 1 5 0 6 4 7 2 8 1\n (38) 3 6 4 5 6 2.5 6 3 8\n (39) 3 5 3 4 4 2.5 5 1 7\n (40) 4 9 4 8 6 4 8 2 11\n\n (41) 3 4.5 3 3 3 6 3.5 4 2\n (42) 3 4.5 3 3 2 6 3.5 3 2\n (43) 8 14 9 7 5 16 11 7 6\n\n (44) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (45) 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 4 1\n\n\n Key:\n A _Morgan_\n B _Morrow_\n C _Muskingum_\n D _Noble_\n E _Ottawa_\n F _Paulding_\n G _Perry_\n H _Pickaway_\n I _Pike_\n\n A B C D E F G H I\n (1) 16,097 16,815 22,643 18,601 18,319 22,730 25,177 18,951 15,723\n (2) 17,905 17,879 23,853 19,466 18,880 27,528 25,877 19,573 18,172\n (3) -10 -6 -5 -4 -3 -17 -3 -3 -13\n\n (4) 14 16 21 15 11 12 12 14 14\n (5) 1,150 1,051 1,078 1,240 1,665 1,894 2,098 1,354 1,123\n (6) 83 70 101 75 50 75 88 58 74\n (7) 6 4 5 5 5 6 7 4 5\n (8) 194 240 224 248 366 303 286 327 211\n\n (9) 14 27 33 15 26 24 28 13 13\n (10) 69 43 68 60 24 51 60 45 61\n (11) 5 11 9 1 17 12 13 1 4\n (12) 10 25 26 14 17 19 21 6 3\n (13) 11 17 12 7 4 14 12 21 3\n (14) 17 8 29 21 6 18 6 24 6\n (15) 21 2 10 17 0 5 23 4 29\n (16) 19 7 13 15 6 5 12 2 27\n (17) 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 2\n\n (18) 12 12 4 8 4 7 5 6 14\n (19) 30 9 6 10 4 20 20 14 13\n (20) 19 13 15 7 8 4 9 17 4\n (21) 6 7 7 5 5 5 8 4 1\n (22) 6 12 13 11 6 3 10 8 2\n (23) 0 2 6 2 6 4 5 4 2\n (24) 2 4 5 2 2 7 9 4 1\n (25) 8 11 45 30 15 25 22 1 37\n\n (26) 31 32 50 33 42 44 46 23 20\n (27) 52 38 51 42 8 31 42 35 54\n\n (28) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 5 3 10 4 1 0 3 2 5\n (30) 7 10 6 6 4 6 4 3 6\n (31) 1 2 4 4 1 4 3 2 3\n (32) 0 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 0\n (33) 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0\n (34) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0\n (35) 12 5 12.5 6 6 5 7 4 7\n (36) 1 3 6 2 4 0 2 0 2\n (37) 1 5 9 2 5 0 2 0 2\n (38) 4 5 5 8 7 5.5 5 6 3\n (39) 4 4 3 5 4 3.5 4 5 3\n (40) 5 7 3 6 6 5 7 5 3\n\n (41) 2 2 4.5 2 4 4 6 3 2\n (42) 2 2 4.5 2 4 4 6 3 2\n (43) 7 9 18 5 15 17 16 7 5\n\n (44) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0\n (45) 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 3 1\n\n\n Key:\n A _Portage_\n B _Preble_\n C _Putnam_\n D _Richland_\n E _Ross_\n F _Sandusky_\n G _Scioto_\n H _Seneca_\n I _Shelby_\n\n A B C D E F G H I\n (1) 18,379 18,921 29,972 17,760 22,460 13,398 19,380 16,796 16,648\n (2) 18,827 18,838 32,525 18,517 25,758 15,039 20,078 18,087 17,788\n (3) -2 +.5 -8 -4 -13 -11 -3 -7 -6\n\n (4) 19 11 15 16 14 8 14 11 13\n (5) 1,967 1,680 1,998 1,110 1,604 1,675 1,384 1,527 1,281\n (6) 48 56 82 66 89 32 83 63 50\n (7) 3 5 5 4 6 4 6 6 4\n (8) 383 341 366 269 252 419 233 267 333\n\n (9) 18 27 34 20 25 11 16 27 24\n (10) 30 29 48 46 64 21 67 36 26\n (11) 12 17 24 9 8 7 3 12 12\n (12) 19 23 19 23 12 7 17 21 14\n (13) 5 8 4 13 13 8 8 13 7\n (14) 4 3 20 13 16 2 14 13 9\n (15) 0 1 5 0 27 3 25 0 5\n (16) 8 4 9 8 11 5 14 4 3\n (17) 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0\n\n (18) 2 1 12 7 12 4 7 3 4\n (19) 8 3 10 13 11 6 21 13 11\n (20) 8 8 8 11 4 3 4 11 5\n (21) 4 9 3 14 12 5 4 4 4\n (22) 12 17 10 8 2 3 2 8 6\n (23) 4 5 6 7 1 1 2 5 7\n (24) 4 6 17 0 3 1 4 7 3\n (25) 6 7 16 6 44 9 39 12 10\n\n (26) 35 36 53 29 37 21 36 36 28\n (27) 13 20 29 37 52 11 47 27 22\n\n (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 0 0 0 3 3 1 4 1 1\n (30) 3 5 7 8 6 1 6 6 5\n (31) 8 2 2 2 4 2 3 3 2\n (32) 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 4\n (33) 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0\n (34) 2 2 3 2 0 2 0 0 1\n\n (35) 11 6 5 7 11 4 12 8 7\n (36) 7 1 1 3 4 2 2 3 3\n (37) 9 1 1 3 5 2 2 3 4\n (38) 7 5 9 1 6 3 7 6 7\n (39) 6 4 8 1 5 3 5 4 6\n (40) 7 6 11 2 7 3 7 6 7\n\n (41) 2 4 6 4.5 4 3 1 2.5 2\n (42) 2 4 6 4.5 4 2 1 2.5 2\n (43) 3 14 20 12 8 6 2 11 5\n\n (44) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n (45) 2 1 2 0 2 4 0 2 2\n\n\n Key:\n A _Stark_\n B _Summit_\n C _Trumbull_\n D _Tuscarawas_\n E _Union_\n F _Van Wert_\n G _Vinton_\n H _Warren_\n\n A B C D E F G H\n (1) 30,984 11,686 23,449 22,387 17,183 14,982 13,096 15,188\n (2) 31,641 11,431 22,030 22,997 18,076 16,682 15,330 15,861\n (3) -2 +2 +6 -3 -5 -10 -15 -4\n\n (4) 13 10 21 18 13 9 12 9\n (5) 2,383 1,169 1,117 1,244 1,322 1,665 1,091 1,688\n (6) 112 42 74 83 63 63 72 56\n (7) 9 4 4 5 5 7 6 6\n (8) 277 378 317 270 273 239 182 271\n (9) 43 17 26 25 17 16 16 18\n (10) 69 25 48 58 46 47 56 38\n (11) 18 7 18 8 7 3 9 8\n (12) 51 17 35 20 17 17 9 19\n (13) 22 10 12 24 12 18 7 12\n (14) 12 5 0 20 15 18 16 5\n (15) 0 0 0 4 1 2 25 7\n (16) 9 3 9 7 9 4 6 5\n (17) 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0\n\n (18) 10 11 13 5 7 5 21 6\n (19) 16 8 5 15 16 4 27 15\n (20) 11 9 21 16 10 10 9 9\n (21) 17 6 6 6 4 8 4 11\n (22) 25 2 8 6 8 7 8 3\n (23) 13 1 6 8 5 3 1 5\n (24) 8 1 9 8 3 5 1 1\n (25) 11 4 6 19 10 21 1 6\n\n (26) 74 30 47 48 37 22 29 35\n (27) 38 12 27 35 26 41 43 21\n\n (28) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0\n (29) 0 1 2 4 2 2 9 1\n (30) 7 5 8 4 8 5 1 4\n (31) 5 1 6 4 1 2 2 3\n (32) 1 3 4 4 1 0 0 0\n (33) 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1\n (34) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0\n\n (35) 7 5 13 7 10 6 10 8\n (36) 2 4 4 1 7 2 4 0\n (37) 3 6 4 1 7 2 4 0\n (38) 15 5 6 11 4 3.5 3 5\n (39) 12 2 2 6 2 3.5 2 5\n (40) 13 3 3 10 2 5 4 7\n\n (41) 7 2 5 4 2.5 3 2 4\n (42) 7 2 5 4 1 3 2 4\n (43) 21 5 12 8 5 6 6 9\n (44) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0\n (45) 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 0\n\n\n Key:\n A _Washington_\n B _Wayne_\n C _Williams_\n D _Wood_\n E _Wyandot_\n\n A B C D E\n (1) 29,409 24,079 16,384 32,951 15,811\n (2) 32,481 23,895 17,440 37,378 16,508\n (3) -9 +.7 -6 -12 -4\n\n (4) 21 13 10 16 12\n (5) 1,400 1,852 1,638 2,059 1,318\n (6) 130 84 66 105 50\n (7) 6 6 7 7 4\n (8) 226 299 248 314 316\n\n (9) 27 42 22 45 22\n (10) 103 42 44 60 28\n (11) 6 25 7 23 5\n (12) 19 33 18 22 13\n (13) 34 12 19 29 23\n (14) 21 8 15 6 9\n (15) 22 0 4 11 0\n (16) 28 6 3 8 0\n (17) 0 0 0 6 0\n\n (18) 26 2 8 10 4\n (19) 36 15 16 20 8\n (20) 17 19 9 11 7\n (21) 18 7 4 8 3\n (22) 6 19 4 14 11\n (23) 3 10 5 12 5\n (24) 3 11 4 6 8\n (25) 21 1 16 24 4\n\n (26) 48 50 33 78 25\n (27) 82 34 33 27 25\n\n (28) 0 0 0 0 0\n (29) 6 1 2 1 1\n (30) 12 5 6 5 6\n (31) 1 5 2 6 0\n (32) 2 2 0 2 3\n (33) 0 0 0 2 2\n (34) 0 0 0 0 0\n\n (35) 14 9 4 7 5\n (36) 4 4 2 2 2\n (37) 4 6 3 2 2\n (38) 10 5.5 2 14 4\n (39) 8 5.5 0 11 4\n (40) 10 9 0 14 7\n\n (41) 3 6 5 9 3\n (42) 3 6 5 9 3\n (43) 7 18 17 25 10\n\n (44) 0 0 0 0 0\n (45) 2 1 0 4 0\n\n\n\n\nPART III\n\nTHE COUNTY MAPS\n\n\n\n\nEXPLANATORY NOTE\n\n\nOn the maps the location of each rural church is indicated by a square and\nthe residence of each minister by a cross. Lines connect each church with\nthe residence of its pastor. Therefore the maps show for each church\nwhether it receives the whole or a part of a minister's service, and for\neach minister how many churches he serves and the distances he must go to\nreach them and the various parts of his parish.\n\nThe capital letters adjacent to each square indicate the denomination of\nthe church. The figures in parentheses and next to the square indicate the\nenrolled membership. The figures not so enclosed indicate the resident\nmembership. The abbreviations, Inc., Sta., and Dec. indicate whether the\nmembership is increasing, stationary, or declining. Increase or decline in\nmembership, however, is only indicated where it was possible to find the\nmembership of ten or five years ago. When the figures for ten years ago\nare available, these are taken as a basis for comparison with the\nmembership at the present time. Often the records of the churches are so\nkept as to make it impossible or very difficult to find the membership of\neither five or ten years ago.\n\nShaded squares indicate closed churches. These have no minister and hold\nno regular services.\n\nAbandoned churches are indicated by black squares. It is believed that\nlarge numbers of them were not reported.\n\nChurches marked \"Not Organized\" do not appear in the tabulations.\n\nIn the northwest corner of each township is given its name, while\nunderneath are figures indicating its population. The large circles in the\ntownship indicate cities or towns of more than 2,500 inhabitants. Figures\nin parentheses indicate the number of their population, which number is\nincluded in the figures for the township. But in each case where they are\nnot in parentheses the town or city is itself a township. Figures in an\noval indicate the number of persons living in the adjacent village or\nsmall town.\n\nA key to the maps is here given.\n\n KEY\n\n X Minister's Residence\n [open box] Church without resident minister\n [solid box] Church abandoned\n [x'd box] Church with resident minister\n [lined box] Church closed\n [circle] Sunday School or Mission\n\n Resident membership is indicated by numerals, enrolled membership by\n numerals in parentheses. Inc. denotes increasing membership; Dec.,\n decreasing, and Sta., stationary membership.\n\n [oval] Numerals in an oval indicate the population of a village.\n\n AC Advent Christian\n AME African Methodist Episcopal\n Br Brethren (German Baptist)\n Br (OO) Old Order Brethren\n Br (Prog.) Progressive Brethren\n B Baptist\n B (Miss.) Missionary Baptist\n B (Col.) Colored Baptist\n B (United) United Baptist\n BSA Brothers' Society of America\n C Christian\n Ca Catholic\n CM Calvin Methodist\n CMA Christian Missionary Alliance\n CNJ Church of New Jerusalem\n CS Christian Science\n CU Christian Union\n D Disciples\n DNP Disciples, Non-Progressive\n E Protestant Episcopal\n EvA Evangelical Association\n F Friends\n FM Free Methodist\n FWB Free Will Baptist\n G Church of God\n GEv German Evangelical\n GME German Methodist Episcopal\n H Holiness\n IBA International Bible Students Association\n L Lutheran\n LDS Latter-Day Saints\n M Mennonite\n Mor Moravian\n ME Methodist Episcopal\n MP Methodist Protestant\n Naz Nazarene\n P Presbyterian\n PB Primitive Baptist\n R Reformed\n RUB Radical United Brethren\n S Saints\n SDA Seventh Day Advent\n SDB Seventh Day Baptist\n U Union\n UB United Brethren\n UP United Presbyterian\n UEv United Evangelical\n Uv Universalist\n USS Union Sunday School\n WM Wesleyan Methodist\n\n\n[Illustration: ADAMS COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: ALLEN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: ATHENS COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: AUGLAIZE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: BROWN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: CARROLL COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: CLARK COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: CLINTON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: CRAWFORD COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: DARKE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: DEFIANCE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: ERIE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: FAYETTE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: FULTON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: GALLIA COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: GREENE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HANCOCK COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HARDIN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HENRY COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HIGHLAND COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HOCKING COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: HURON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: JACKSON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: KNOX COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: LAKE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: LICKING COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: LOGAN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MADISON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MARION COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MEIGS COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MERCER COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MONROE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MORGAN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MORROW COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: NOBLE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: PAULDING COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: PERRY COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: PICKAWAY COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: PIKE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: PREBLE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: PUTNAM COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: ROSS COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: SANDUSKY COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: SCIOTO COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: SENECA COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: SHELBY COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: STARK COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: UNION COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: VAN WERT COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: VINTON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: WARREN COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: WILLIAMS COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: WOOD COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n[Illustration: WYANDOT COUNTY, OHIO]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nACTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERCHURCH COOPERATION OF THE OHIO RURAL LIFE\nASSOCIATION\n\n\nOn June 14 and 15, 1916, a meeting was held of the Committee on\nInterchurch Cooperation of the Ohio Rural Life Association at Columbus.\nThis Committee is composed largely of superintendents and representatives\nof several of the leading denominations of the State. They met for the\npurpose of making a thorough study of country church conditions and were\ndetermined, if possible, to devise a remedy. The following were among\nthose present: Bishop Wm. F. Anderson of the Methodist Episcopal Church;\nthe Rt. Rev. Theodore Irving Reese of the Protestant Episcopal Church;\nSuperintendents, I. J. Cahill, W. J. Grimes, A. W. Jamieson, Robert E.\nPugh, E. S. Rothrock and Omer S. Thomas of the Disciples of Christ, the\nUnited Presbyterian, the Presbyterian, the Congregational and Christian\nchurches; Dr. Washington Gladden, officially representing the\nCongregational churches; Rev. C. W. Brugh, representing the Reformed\nChurch, and Rev. E. L. Averitt, representing Rev. Tileston F. Chambers,\nSuperintendent of the Baptist churches. Superintendent Rev. C. W. Kurtz of\nthe United Brethren, and Superintendent C. S. Beck of the Methodist\nProtestant Church have also endorsed the action of the meeting.\n\nAfter a thorough discussion of rural church conditions, the following\nmeasures were agreed upon as remedies:\n\nInterchurch cooperation in every locality to create conditions favorable\nto the development of Christian character, to build a strong, wholesome,\nattractive community, to hold community religious services and social\ngatherings and to render all forms of social service needed in the\ncommunity but not rendered by other institutions.\n\nWhere there is now no resident pastor in a township the combining of all\nchurches so far as possible either in one church or in one circuit or\nfederated church under one pastor who should be held responsible for\nrendering social and religious service in the township.\n\nTo bring this to pass all ministers now visiting and preaching in a\ncommunity should by their preaching exalt christian unity and the Kingdom\nof God, and in preaching and personal work try to prepare the people for\nacceptance of a policy of community service.\n\nTo secure cooperation of ministers:\n\nPreparation and sending of bulletins to every pastor, containing program\nand making clear reasons for adopting it.\n\nPreparation and sending of letters from this Committee to every rural\npastor, urging acceptance of higher ideals of service as here set forth.\n\nPreparation and sending to country pastors of frequent bulletins\ncontaining information and description of notable examples of good country\nchurch work.\n\nAppointment of sub-committees to secure action by denominational bodies\napproving program of Committee.\n\nThe following statements of policy and methods were also adopted:\n\nIn a township or community requiring more than one church or pastor there\nshould be a \"federation of churches,\" that is, a joint committee of\npastors and delegates officially appointed by the several churches to\nlearn and meet all needs, religious or social, which require cooperation\nor concerted action.\n\nIn communities whose compactness permits and whose population and\nresources require there should be only one congregation and pastor, but\nwhere two or more churches exist, churches should be united organically in\na single denominational church, the denomination to be determined on the\ngive and take plan. If organic union in a denominational church is not\nfeasible, a federated church should be formed.\n\nIn a township or community where population and resources are inadequate\nto support more than one pastor, but where the population is so\ndistributed that more than one place of worship and organized church are\nnecessary, a federated circuit should be formed and a common pastor\nemployed. The several churches should be officially represented on a joint\ncommittee who shall act for the circuit not only in employing the common\npastor, but also in learning and meeting all needs, religious and social,\nwhich require cooperation and concerted action.\n\nIn the forming or re-forming of circuits it should be brought to pass that\nthe various fields served by one pastor should be as close together as\npossible. To make the minister's field as compact as possible,\ninterdenominational circuits should be formed.\n\nThe rural ministry should, it possible, be so distributed that in each\ntownship there shall be a resident pastor.\n\nMeasures to prevent the recurrence of over-churched conditions should be\ntaken by every branch of the church. Each should determine not to organize\nchurches where they are not needed or certain to be needed. In a new\ncommunity needing but one church, an expression of the people should be\nobtained as to the choice of the church to be established. The desires of\nthe largest number should be followed.\n\nWhere several little churches exist in a sparsely settled community and a\nunion or federation is not possible or advisable, consideration should be\ngiven to the plan of having all these withdraw, and inviting a branch of\nthe church not represented locally to come in and organize a single\nchurch.\n\nIn the exchange or withdrawal of churches reciprocity should be at least\nState-wide in its extent.\n\nWhere a denomination is given control or dominance in a community by\nwithdrawal of other denominations, the continuance of that control or\ndominance should be conditional on the church and minister maintaining in\ntheir service a high degree of efficiency--the standard of efficiency to\nbe determined by the denominational leaders who should formulate a few\nsimple principles by which the usefulness of a church can be measured. The\ndenomination holding a field should, for a reasonable length of time,\nreport to those withdrawing as to progress.\n\n\nPrinted in the United States of America\n\n\n\n\nThe following pages contain advertisements of a few of the Macmillan books\non kindred subjects.\n\n\n\nRELIGIOUS HAND BOOKS\n\n(_New and Not Reprints_)\n\nEach Sixty Cents\n\n\nTHE NEW OPPORTUNITY OF THE CHURCH\n\nBY ROBERT E. SPEER\n\nThis volume very suitably follows Dr. Speer's _The Christian Man, the\nChurch, and the War_, dealing as it does with the present responsibility\nof the Church.\n\n\nTHE CHURCH FACING THE FUTURE\n\nBY WILLIAM ADAMS BROWN\n\nDr. Brown discusses four big questions: First, Where the War Found the\nChurch; second, What the Church did for the War; third, What the War did\nfor the Church; and fourth, Where the War Leaves the Church.\n\n\nDEMOCRATIC CHRISTIANITY; SOME PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH IN THE DAYS JUST\nAHEAD\n\nBY FRANCIS J. MCCONNELL\n\n\"We have in mind the tasks of to-day as they confront the Christian\nChurch,\" writes Bishop McConnell.\n\n\nGOD'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR\n\nBY EDWARD S. DROWN\n\nDr. Drown discusses this very interesting question in terse and vigorous\nprose.\n\n\nTHE TWENTIETH CENTURY CRUSADE\n\nBY LYMAN ABBOTT\n\nWritten by one who has an exultant faith that never in the history of the\npast has there been so splendid a demonstration of the extent and power of\nthe Christ spirit as to-day.\n\n\nTHE WAY TO LIFE\n\nBY HENRY CHURCHILL KING\n\nA discussion of the Sermon on the Mount, similar to that in Dr. King's\nformer book _The Ethics of Jesus_. Besides rewriting them, he has added\nmaterial on the war and the teachings of Jesus.\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN MAN, THE CHURCH AND THE WAR\n\nBY ROBERT E. SPEER\n\nDr. Speer here discusses the essentials of a problem which has exercised\nChristian men since the beginning of the war. He deals with it sanely and\nin a manner that will be considered distinctly helpful.\n\n\nNEW HORIZON OF STATE AND CHURCH\n\nBY W. H. P. FAUNCE\n\n\"Broad, profound scholarship, close relationship with progressive\nsentiment all over the land, and unusual powers of keen analysis and\ngraphic statement are forceful elements in _The New Horizon of State and\nChurch_.\"--_Philadelphia North American._\n\n\n\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHORS_\n\nThe Country Church: The Decline of its Influence and the Remedy\n\nBY CHARLES OTIS GILL AND GIFFORD PINCHOT\n\n_Cloth, 12o, $1.25_\n\nIs the country church growing in size and power, or declining? Is it doing\neffectually the work which belongs to it? These are in the main the\nquestions which Charles Otis Gill and Gifford Pinchot consider in their\nbook \"The Country Church.\" The book is not a collection of opinions, as it\nwas found that there were almost as many who believed thoroughly in the\ncountry church and the work which it is doing as there were those who were\ndoubtful of its efficacy. The volume is rather made up of facts brought\nforward by the personal investigations of the authors, and conclusions\nbased on these facts.\n\n\"Mr. Gill and Mr. Pinchot, collaboring in this problem of rural life, have\ngiven us a book which will at once become an authority in its\nfield.\"--_Christian Work._\n\n\"The facts and figures are definite and illumined by a myriad of\nside-lights.\"--_Boston Transcript._\n\n\"Differs from almost all the others because of the thoroughness of the\ninvestigation and the soundness of the conclusions.\"--_San Francisco\nChronicle._\n\n\"Deserves most thoughtful consideration.... Should arouse attention and\nstimulate effort to restore to the country church the influence that it is\nlosing.\"--_Christian Endeavor World._\n\n\n\n_FORTHCOMING RELIGIOUS BOOKS_\n\nProphecy and Authority: A Study in the History of the Doctrine and\nInterpretation of Scripture.\n\nBY KEMPER FULLERTON\n\nProfessor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Oberlin Graduate\nSchool of Theology\n\n_Cloth, 12mo._\n\nThe purpose of this volume is two-fold--to discuss the principles and the\ninterpretation of Messianic prophecy in view of the recent revival of\nMillenialist claims, and to re-open the question of the nature of the\nBible as a principle of authority in Protestant theology.\n\nThe author seeks to trace the way in which the methods of interpretation\nand the doctrines of Scripture affect each other in the Church's\ninterpretation of prophecy and to show how the scientific principles of\ninterpretation adopted by the reformers inevitably lead to the abandonment\nof the Millenialist theory and dogmatic view of Scripture, and that these\nresults are at the same time religiously desirable.\n\n\nStudies in Mark's Gospel\n\nBY A. T. ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D.\n\nProfessor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist\nTheological Seminary\n\n_Cloth, 12mo._\n\nThis book aims to help the modern man to see Jesus as Mark saw Him in the\nfirst glow of enthusiasm under Peter's preaching. It is readable and yet\nthoroughly scholarly and makes use of the results of synoptic criticism to\nshow the historical foundation of our knowledge of the life of Christ. It\nis not commentary, nor yet exposition, but a critical discussion of the\nchief aspects of this earliest of our Gospels. The work is a real\nintroduction to Mark's Gospel and will unlock its treasures for all who\nread it.\n\n\n\n_A NEW VOLUME IN THE BIBLE FOR HOME AND SCHOOL SERIES_\n\nCommentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans\n\nBY EDWARD INCREASE BOSWORTH\n\n_Cloth, 12mo._\n\nThe author of this Commentary has endeavored to help those who use it read\nPaul's letter to the Romans with due regard to the pre-suppositions which\npossessed Paul's mind and the minds of those to whom it was addressed, no\nmatter to what extent these pre-suppositions have passed out of modern\nthought. He has tried to do this in such a way as to bring out the\nessential, vital facts of Christian experience which may persist under\nmany forms of changing pre-suppositions.\n\n\n\n_OTHER VOLUMES IN_\n\nThe Bible for Home and School Series\n\nSHAILER MATHEWS, GENERAL EDITOR\n\n GENESIS, by PROFESSOR H. G. MITCHELL $.90\n DEUTERONOMY, by PROFESSOR W. G. JORDAN .75\n JUDGES, by PROFESSOR EDWARD L. CURTIS .75\n JOB, by PROFESSOR GEORGE A. BARTON .90\n ISAIAH, by PROFESSOR JOHN E. MCFADYEN .90\n AMOS, HOSEA, AND MICAH, by PROFESSOR J. M. POWIS SMITH .75\n MATTHEW, by PROFESSOR A. T. ROBERTSON .60\n MARK, by PROFESSOR M. W. JACOBUS .75\n ACTS, by PROFESSOR GEORGE H. GILBERT .75\n GALATIANS, by PROFESSOR B. W. BACON .50\n EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS, by REVEREND GROSS ALEXANDER .50\n HEBREWS, by PROFESSOR E. J. GOODSPEED .50\n\n\n_VOLUMES IN PREPARATION_\n\n I SAMUEL BY PROFESSOR L. W. BATTEN\n PSALMS BY REVEREND J. P. PETERS\n JOHN BY PROFESSOR SHAILER MATHEWS\n I AND II CORINTHIANS BY PROFESSOR J. S. RIGGS\n\n\n THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nMany tables have been split and keys have been added to enhance\nreadability in this text version.\n\nIn the key to the maps on page 146, each symbol has been replaced with a\n[description] in brackets.\n\nPunctuation has been corrected without note.\n\nThe following misprints have been corrected:\n \"Surburban\" corrected to \"Suburban\" (Table of Contents)\n \"opportunites\" corrected to \"opportunities\" (page 75)\n \"surburban\" corrected to \"suburban\" (page 111)\n \"representin\" corrected to \"representing\" (page 235)\n\nOther than the corrections listed above, inconsistencies in spelling and\nhyphenation have been retained from the original.","title":"Six Thousand Country Churches","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":38687}