Education, Authority, and the Church in the life and thought of John Ellsworth Hartzler

by Keith Benner

Abstract: One of the key figures of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy as it took shape in the Mennonite Church was John Ellsworth Hartzler. Hartzler was born to an old order Amish family and converted under the ministry of A.D. Wenger at the age of sixteen. Hartzler quickly became a popular evangelist known for his dynamic and flamboyant style. He also had a thirst for education and learning which led him to attend several of the most prestigious and influential schools which shaped liberal Protestant theology in the twentieth century. Hartzler is perhaps best known for his presidency at Goshen College from 1913-1918 where he was accused of being a theological liberal and leading the college into debt. Hartzler’s many sermons and lectures following his time at Goshen reveal the profound influence his educational experiences and his experience with "Mennonite Fundamentalists" had on his life and thought. Hartzler’s educational path and his interaction with key leaders of the Mennonite church are a study in the diverse and sometimes paradoxical elements which shaped the Mennonite Church during the first half of the twentieth century.

Introduction

Mennonite historians have undertaken a number of attempts to understand the transformations that occurred in the Mennonite Church in the first half of the twentieth century. One of the most significant factors in shaping the changes was the fundamentalist-modernist controversy taking place among Protestants. With the rise of evolutionary theory, historical criticism of Scripture and a progressivism that seemed to weaken orthodox understandings of sin, American Protestantism was left in disarray as it dealt with influences that were part of an American society becoming increasingly secularized. Scholars who tried to integrate their Christian faith with modern trends did so through a number of movements including theological liberalism, evangelical liberalism, transcendentalism and scientific modernism. The adherents to any of these movements or any combination thereof, fall into the category of "modernist."

Fundamentalism was at its core a "patchwork coalition of representatives of other movements" which reacted to the synthesis taking place in American Protestantism. It borrowed from evangelicalism, revivalism, pietism, the holiness movements, and millenarianism. As it coalesced it emerged as a separate phenomenon which fought liberalism of all stripes within the denominations and attempted to purge evolutionary theory from American culture. The central tenets of fundamentalism were laid out in a series of booklets published between 1910 and 1915. "The Fundamentals," for which the movement was named, included the basic teachings of Protestant Orthodoxy: the infallibility of Scripture, the virgin birth, the complete deity and humanity of Christ, the reality of sin, God’s grace as the way to salvation as opposed to human effort, and the church as the institution through which God works to build up Christians and spread the gospel. Later the movement also emphasized a premillennial view of Christ’s return.

The fundamentalist-modernist controversy did not take shape in the Mennonite church the same way it did in American Protestantism, although many similar elements can be found. The most recent and comprehensive study of the period by Nathan Yoder asserts, "Mennonite fundamentalists were adapting modern methods to resist both modernity as described by sociologists and modernism as defined by theologians. They merit the label fundamentalist for their explicit effort to bring permanence to doctrine and practice, their overt rejection of historicism, and their commitment to applying these understandings to the life of the church." Other Mennonite historians have emphasized different aspects which characterized the phenomenon as it took its own form among Mennonites. Leonard Gross, for example, has labeled the era from 1898 to 1944 the "doctrinal era." He asserts that the doctrinal center and ahistorical nature of the period make it an "extended interlude, the likes of which were not experienced in preceding centuries nor in the decades after 1944." In a slightly earlier article Paul Toews notes that fundamentalism in Mennonite churches demonstrates "the movement toward denominational consolidation . . . something more akin to denominational conservatism than American fundamentalism." Theron Schlabach notes that along with emphasizing orthodoxy in belief, a new emphasis was placed on the authority of structures created as a result of the "quickening" in the period prior. It is evident through the accounts of all these authors that at the heart of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the Mennonite Church were questions regarding how one understands truth and how truth is applied. As this paper will demonstrate, inherent to these questions was also the underlying issue of authority in the church.

One of the key figures in the drama of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy was John Ellsworth Hartzler. His story is significant because it demonstrates the complex and conflicting elements involved as a new generation of Mennonite leaders emerged from their ethnic enclaves and engaged American culture at large. Two elements of particular importance in the life of Hartzler are his exposure to liberal Protestant academic institutions and his experiences as he conflicted with key leaders of the fundamentalist movement. This paper will explore Hartzler’s encounter with protestant liberalism from his Mennonite context and its effect on his understanding of the church as it is presented in various sermons and lectures. In so doing, hopefully more insight will be added to the life and thought of one of the important figures of the time and to the dynamics which shaped the Church during this period.

The towering figure of the fundamentalist movement in the Mennonite Church was Daniel Kauffman. Through his initial writing of Manual of Bible Doctrine in 1898 and subsequent editions in 1914 and 1928 Kauffman led the way in a fundamental reinterpretation of how Mennonites understood truth. Kauffman embraced an understanding of truth characteristic of protestant fundamentalism, which embraced verbalized propositions as opposed to an existential understanding that saw truth as it was worked out in application to daily life. The natural expression for such an understanding of truth is through institutions. Thus the newly created boards of education, missions and charities and of publishing along with the creation of the general conference became the loci of authority for the way in which these new understandings would be applied in the church.

J.E. Hartzler was set on the path to become an influential church leader with the help of Kauffman. Noted by Kauffman in the Bethel congregation in Cass County Missouri, Kauffman wrote to John S. Coffman on behalf of Hartzler, asking that Coffman send Hartzler a personal letter and a catalog for the Elkhart Institute. Hartzler, who developed a love of learning early in life and was inspired by the likes of Coffman and A.D. Wenger under whom he was converted at the age of sixteen, attended the Institute which later became Goshen College. In 1904 he returned to Missouri, accepting a call from the unanimous voice of his congregation to be an ordained minister. Hartzler quickly became a successful minister and itinerant evangelist. Because of his popularity as a public speaker Hartzler traveled the country as an evangelist from 1905 to 1907. He was a flamboyant, dynamic orator "whose strapping physical stature, booming voice, and overwrought gestures dramatically served his message."

In addition to preaching, Hartzler published several books and articles in the Gospel Herald. However, Hartzler longed for higher education. Against the advice of Daniel Kauffman, Hartzler first attended Moody Bible Institute in the summer of 1907. Unsatisfied with his classes at Moody, he quickly transferred to McCormick Seminary, where he stayed until 1909. In Hartzler’s memoirs he writes of his transfer to McCormick, "The day in September that year when I entered McCormick Seminary marks one of the most significant milestones in my life. That day put me into a new and different world, a world that I have never had reason to regret." However, Hartzler never completed a degree at McCormick. Prairie Street Mennonite Church in Elkhart called him to be pastor in 1909, which Hartzler accepted on the condition that he first be allowed to attend Union Theological Seminary in New York, where he completed his divinity degree. Hartzler’s motivation to attend union stemmed from hearing the president of the seminary speak in the summer of 1908 or 1909 in Chicago. His decision to seek higher education against the advice of his mentor reflects not only his strong desire for higher education but also a stubborn tendency to follow his inclinations, for better or worse, against popular opinion.

Hartzler’s writings during this period reflect the young fire and brimstone preacher that he was. His first two books are collections of sermons. His third is a point by point refutation of the heresy of Russellism. In his second, Paths to Perdition, he warns against the evils of tobacco use, lodge membership and visiting places of ill-repute such as dance halls and saloons. Despite an introduction by Daniel Kauffman, Paths to Perdition drew criticism from others in the Church for speaking too strongly against tobacco, thus offending tobacco farmers in the east, and not coming out strongly enough against worldly clothing, games of chance, art and poetry. The reaction to Paths to Perdition was only a small tremor in the larger rumblings over more important issues that were developing, particularly along the fault line of Goshen College where Hartzler quickly became a central figure.

J.E. Hartzler still remained a popular speaker and evangelist after his time at Union Theological Seminary and he continued to enjoy a close relationship with Daniel Kauffman. In 1911 he was appointed to the Dress Committee and to the Committee overseeing the publication of Bible Doctrine, the newest version of Kauffman’s original Manual of Bible Doctrine. Kauffman called on numerous leaders in the church to contribute, entrusting the task of writing the section on salvation to Hartzler, which was a considerable portion of nine chapters. In addition, he served on the Resolutions Committee with the likes of George Brunk, a man known for his conservative tendencies, in 1913.

Also in 1911 Hartzler was appointed dean of the Bible department at Goshen College. The next seven years at Goshen would prove to be definitive for Hartzler. One of several significant factors in the controversies during his time at Goshen was his theological education at Union. It did not take long for this to come into play when he decided to use a text he had been introduced to at Union, William Newton Clarke’s Outline of Christian Theology. Clarke used traditional orthodox categories but quite clearly had a strong modernist bent. In addition to being introduced to Clarke at Union, he also had contact with other influential leaders of liberal Protestantism such as Harry Emerson Fosdick and Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Writing in 1958, Hartzler claims his most valuable courses at Union were under William Adams Brown, a strong advocate of theological liberalism, the social gospel and the importance of religion in undergirding liberal democracy. However Hartzler is not clear about what exactly he found significant in the teaching of Brown. In addition, he mentions that Fosdick along with several other well known speakers and authors who were theological and evangelical liberals were most influential "for methods in preaching, content of sermons and effective delivery."

Hartzler’s use of Clarke increased the scrutiny of Conservatives. When Kauffman confronted Hartzler about the use of the book during the school year of 1912, Hartzler claimed that he had used the book only for a brief period and had found it unsatisfactory. However, after the 1914 edition of Bible Doctrine was issued Hartzler still came under fire for the apparent influence of Clarke in his writing by George Brunk. By this time Hartzler had become president of Goshen after the former president, Noah E. Byers, and the Dean, C. Henry Smith, resigned and took positions at Bluffton in 1913. Hartzler did not use the opportunity of his inaugural address to ease the concerns of his critics. Kauffman was still supportive of Hartzler and knowing that the address would further inflame his critics, refused to print it in the Gospel Herald.

Hartzler begins his address by espousing the merits of a "liberal education." He proposes that the term liberal has been misused to mean moral, religious or intellectual indifference. He proposes a new definition meaning, "bountifulness, generous, large, abundant and not characterized by selfishness or limitation." He goes on to propose a holistic education where one tends to the physical, spiritual, intellectual and emotional components of each person no matter their field of study. He lauds the merits of scholarship and all the academic disciplines declaring that young people need "a broad knowledge of the world." Towards the end of his address he discusses the essence of Christianity and the relationship of religion to science. Christianity, he declares, "is essentially a matter of experience, and there are many different experiences as there are people. Christianity in essence is to be found in the living convictions of men, rather than in creeds, dogmas, traditions or even theologies." On religion and science he states they may "walk together on friendly terms . . . It is evident certainly that religion will need to give science right of way in some things, and science will need to regard the voice of religion."

The last two statements clearly reflect ideas he would have been introduced to at Union. His emphasis on experience parallels the language of Clarke. In addition, Hartzler’s statement on science advocates a synthesis between science and religion that characterized the thought of most proponents of theological liberalism. If conservatives in the old Mennonite church were afraid of modernism infiltrating Goshen College through the thought of those who sought higher education at liberal institutions such as Union, Hartzler’s address demonstrates their fears were not unfounded. It might appear that Hartzler was throwing the gauntlet down and drawing battle lines. However, that does not seem to be the case for several reasons. Hartzler’s conviction that the essence of religion and Christianity was a matter of experience may have stemmed as much from an existential understanding of truth which characterized American Mennonitism prior to the new era ushered in by the likes of Kauffman, Brunk and Horsch. Furthermore, his understanding of religion as experience can just as easily be tied to his conversion experience under A.D. Wenger. Through Wenger and the influence of John S. Coffman Hartzler was exposed to revivalism’s emphasis on the need for a salvation experience. At Union, Hartzler was undoubtedly introduced to Friedrich Schleiermacher, who had a strong influence on Clarke and in turn on Hartzler’s professors. It is very probable Hartzler’s encounter with Schleiermacher or others who were influenced by him, resonated with Hartzler because of his encounter with revivalism and his own conversion experience. In later sermons and lectures Hartzler incorporates both Schleiermacher and Albrecht Ritschl into his understanding of the nature of Christian truth.

This still leaves the question as to why Hartzler would make such statements in an inaugural address when he was already one of the centerpieces of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy taking place in the Mennonite Church. He surely knew that his address would draw criticism and continue to polarize. In his dissertation Nathan Yoder notes several significant factors which shed light on the question. Hartzler’s continued success as a public speaker probably gave him confidence to make statements he knew would draw criticism. Furthermore, Hartzler’s experience with revivalism led him to believe that there was virtue in going against tradition. Hartzler may have also seen himself carrying on the tradition of John S. Coffman by putting forth a vision he thought was in keeping with "The Spirit of Progress." However, unlike Coffman, Hartzler had a flare for the dramatic and he did not have an innate propensity for mediation. The brilliance of Hartzler’s role model was in his ability to modify the distasteful elements of revivalism found in Protestantism and render them palatable to Mennonite tastes. Hartzler was not convincing in his assertion that he was not a liberal because he could not do the same with ideas from modernist thought that he found stimulating.

Probably because of Kauffman’s refusal to publish it in the Gospel Herald, Hartzler’s address did not draw as much criticism as one might think. However, events would continue to conspire against Hartzler throughout the rest of his administration. His relationship with Daniel Kauffman went sour as much over misunderstandings in communication as over doctrinal issues. In addition, Hartzler lost some of his popularity as a speaker because rumors of his liberal tendencies were spreading rapidly and he was criticized for preaching at Central and General Conference churches. Hartzler’s term as president ended in an unfortunate manner. Hartzler sought a "bigger and better Goshen College," but as a result the college went into debt. Things came to a head in 1918 and Hartzler resigned. In 1923 the college itself was closed down and reorganized.

Recounting a meeting with the Board of Education years later, Hartzler stated that he had explained at the meeting that what he was trying to do at the college was "to teach these young people to think for themselves." To which one of the bishops replied "if that is what we are trying to do . . . the sooner we close it down the better." Although the accuracy of Hartzler’s recollection may be called into question in light of his experience and given that he wrote it years after the event, it accurately points to another important issue central to Hartzler’s life and thought and to the events at Goshen. Mennonite fundamentalists were not necessarily against education. However they saw education serving a different purpose than did Hartzler and his contemporaries. In 1918, after the debacle at Goshen involving Hartzler, Kauffman wrote:

What raised the ire of conservatives was that Hartzler did not seem to understand the purpose of the college as being to serve the Church through the regulation of the Board of Education. He certainly desired to cultivate religious fervor among young people so they would serve the Church. However, he felt a college education that pursued education for education’s sake would do just that. This is evident when Hartzler’s stated intent for the college in his inaugural address is compared to Kauffman’s, "The purpose of a college course of study is essentially to develop the powers and potentialities of the human mind; to liberate the mind and the soul from error, from outworn traditions and artificial hindrances which hinder their normal development, and to equip a man with a clear intellect . . ." Hartzler saw education as the primary way that the church could progress away from the traditionalism and dogma which he saw as inconsistent with true religion.

Hartzler’s encounter with liberal theologians, from both Union and after his presidency at the University of Chicago, is also evident in his views on revelation and evolution. In his lectures on Systematic theology, Hartzler rejects the idea of verbal, plenary inspiration yet still holds a high view of Scripture. In a conclusion to a lecture on revelation he writes, "The spirit of the Bible is always right, even though there may be and are, literary errors, grammatical errors, and perhaps historical and scientific errors. But all of this we may grant without the slightest loss of faith." There is coherence between Hartzler’s understanding of Scripture and his understanding of the immanence of God. In the same lecture he describes inspiration as, "the living spirit of God, back of the letter as authority." He explicitly rejects the "external authority" given to Scripture by Calvin where "the Bible was given arbitrarily and must then be taken literally."

Hartzler also attempts to work out a synthesis between his faith and evolution through four "facts concerning evolution." First he declares that creative evolution is a well established principle. It is an "original cause . . . a description of God’s way of working." Because God is first cause he would not be degraded at all if it were proven that "God worked for millions of years." Hartzler’s attitude toward William Jennings Bryan is also telling on this point. He claims that Bryan is "moving in the wrong direction with many people following him." It is not clear that he is including Bryan’s view of evolution in this statement, although it is probably safe to assume so based on the statements above. He criticizes Bryan explicitly for his type of leadership and "dogmatic assertions" which Hartzler says do not advocate that people must think for themselves. Hartzler certainly had absorbed at least some of the scientific modernism to which he was exposed to at both Union Theological Seminary and the University of Chicago.

After resigning from Goshen, Hartzler further widened the chasm between himself and conservatives by deciding to attend the University of Chicago, a hotbed of modernism, to pursue an M.A. prior to becoming President at Bethel in 1920. In 1921 he accepted another presidency at Witmarsum Theological Seminary until its closure in 1931. After Witmarsum he traveled to Beirut to serve as a professor of theology and ethics at the American University and then professor of religion and theology at the Near East School of Theology. Upon returning home he took a position as professor of philosophy and ethics at Hartford Theology Seminary where he received his doctorate in 1924.

Hartzler made his final split with the old Mennonite Church when he was refused communion by his bishop at his congregation in Kansas while teaching at Bethel in 1920. Something of Hartzler’s tenacity and conviction is seen in his actions following his resignation at Goshen and prior to his leaving the old Mennonite Church for the General conference. Although he did attend the University of Chicago, once again pursuing higher education against the advice of his peers, he repeatedly turned down offers to join the faculty at Bluffton. Furthermore he did not immediately attend a General Conference Mennonite Church at Bethel. As Stephen Ainlay notes, part of Harztler’s motivation for not attending Bluffton right away was its lack of support from other Mennonite Groups. It appears Hartzler had not given up on working with the old Mennonites completely. Hartzler still envisioned a Mennonite seminary with broad support from the church. Another point of contention between conservatives and Hartzler was the matter of whether or not pastors should be paid. Hartzler, with his progressive tendencies and zeal for education, had been entertaining thoughts of an exclusive Mennonite Seminary for some time where young people could be trained for the ministry. As detailed by Ainly, Hartzler, along with five others, acted on the idea by beginning a series of meetings in December of 1919. However, Kauffman and others strongly opposed the idea and passed a resolution against it at the Mennonite Conference of Virginia in September of the same year on the grounds that, ". . . a modern seminary would violate the scriptural method and authority of training and providing workers for the Church . . . [and] because those prominent in the movement have not proven themselves champions of the orthodox faith, and they have failed to oppose the liberalistic tendencies threatening the welfare of the Church." Wearied by the opposition, when Bluffton opened its new Witmarsum Theological Seminary Hartzler finally accepted their offer and once again assumed the position of president.

Despite the feelings of bitterness that events at Goshen College caused among both parties, some credit needs to be given to Hartzler for his persistence in following his conviction that the Church needed a seminary with broad support. Despite the many harsh exchanges that followed Hartzler’s presidency at Goshen between conservatives among the old Mennonites and their counterparts in the General Conference, Church unity is a theme that occurs frequently in the sermons and lectures of Hartzler. In sermons given while teaching much later in his career at Hartford Theological Seminary Hartzler writes on the problem of disunity in the church, "Ideas and convictions always tend toward institutionalizing themselves in the terms of traditions, customs and various practices. Some of these practices have become the tests of membership in some Mennonite Churches, and this has caused divisions." Instead of "traditions, customs, and various practices," Hartzler proposes the present generation needs "applied Christianity." The bond of applied Christianity for Hartzler is Jesus as experienced in real life. He explains that Jesus is the "bond" in that "the exact theological or doctrinal spot where men stand is not essential for unity. The essential thing is: are they facing the Christ and are they moving in His direction?" To move in Christ’s direction involves ethical conviction and action accompanied by self improvement. Highlighting again the importance of education in the thought of Hartzler, he claims the desire to learn, spiritually and intellectually is inherent to the Christian life. This, accompanied with conviction, motivated by love and an "absorbing purpose," is what should draw the church together. By purpose Hartzler means social action. He proposes that gathering around a single purpose would draw the church together. Although how this purpose is to be determined is not entirely clear. Hartzler seems to think it will come naturally through "spiritual intelligence," when "men face Christ honestly and open-mindedly their convictions should not be vastly different."

Another more prominent theme in the writings of Hartzler is the Kingdom of God. For Hartzler the Kingdom is the essential part of Jesus teaching. In fact Hartzler asserts that Jesus did not organize the church or effect any institutions, rather he inspired men with dynamic ideals "which later found expression through the organization of the church." When Jesus said to Peter . . . I will build my Church," He meant "that his own person and personality were fundamental in the Church. (2) that the church would be the avenue of expression for the Kingdom of God (3) that the "keys" represented the truth of his Messiahship, and not superimposed human authority." The Church is a means to an end which is the Kingdom; the purpose of the church "is the visible organization through which the kingdom, a spiritual inspiration, a spiritual life, finds expression."

In keeping with his understanding of religion as experience, the Kingdom of God centers on the individual’s encounter with God. It is "an inspiration rather than an institution. The Kingdom is the "rule of God over and in the spirits of men by which man’s whole personality is cleansed from rebellion and led to willing obedience and christlikeness. . . Every christlike heart is a kingdom in itself." But it is not only an inward experience; when Jesus spoke of the Kingdom he "meant the progressive development of a society in which the qualities of his own life and relationship with God and man should be the essential features; a society in which filial trust and brotherly love should be both the test of membership, and the bond of union." The message the Kingdom brings is salvation through an encounter with Christ, a person cannot join the Kingdom merely through joining the "progressive development of society." Hartzler never seems to stray too far from the salvation terminology he learned as a young revivalist: "The inability of man to save himself through his own efforts has been demonstrated all too frequently. There is salvation in none other than the Christ. It is not so much what I have done myself as it is what the Christ has done for me."

Hartzler’s understanding of the Kingdom shapes his understanding of the relationship of the church to the world. One of his major criticisms of the Mennonite church has been its failure to engage the world. He advocates involvement in politics and society, urging that if the 650,000,000 Christians in the world of his day would, they "could decide the national and the international policies of the world . . ." He claims "the program of the Kingdom" involves "working toward a great social objective; an objective which includes freedom, justice, fraternity, honest labor and leisure." That Christians should be involved in the political structures of the world is an idea that re-emerges consistently in Hartzler’s writings from at least the time of his dissertation in 1924 to the preaching of the sermon quoted above given during his tenure at Hartford Theological Seminary. He calls upon Menno Simon’s belief that one could be a Christian and a magistrate as an example and invokes this as a model Mennonites should use. He lauds "the attitude of a large majority of aggressive Mennonites today who are active in moral and political issues." And he declares, "It is not unusual today to find Mennonites in State Legislatures and other places of governmental responsibility."

Hartzler claims the kingdom will be realized "through the progressive activity of the Church. The supreme task of the Church is that of the establishment of the kingdom among men." He advocates a strong post-millennialist position which makes sense given his faith in progress, "the kingdom is still in the process of establishment; it is being progressively established in every generation." Jesus expected nothing less than "a perfect humanity at the end of the kingdom program." Hartzler’s optimism towards the church fulfilling its program and establishing the Kingdom seemed to be unshakable even after living through both World Wars. In 1950, in a paper he wrote after visiting Europe, he concludes, "With this mixture of betrayals, disappointments and hopes one naturally becomes more moderate in his utterances, and more conservative in his optimism concerning the future. The chariot of history continues to move toward its goal certainly, but often finds that it must make distressing detours."

Hartzler’s view of the church and the Kingdom of God as presented above is stitched together through certain themes that emerge throughout his lectures and sermons given from the beginning of his presidency at Witmarsum in 1921 to his retirement at Hartford in 1947. A further theme critical to understanding the thought of Hartzler is his emphasis on the individual and conscience. This is born out most clearly in the democratic terms Hartzler uses to interpret the Anabaptist-Mennonite Tradition. In an article in The Christian Exponent and reiterated later in his dissertation, Hartzler recounts four operating principles fundamental to the faith of the early Anabaptists: first is that the Bible is a book for all men, second is the right of any person to interpret the Bible for him or herself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, third is the right of every person to an individual conscience and dissent in political, social and religious matters and fourth is religious toleration or mutual respect when opinions differ on matters non-essential to the faith. To summarize, Hartzler declares of the early Anabaptists, "They were strictly individualistic and ‘congregational’ in their ideas of Church government. Every man was his own king, pope, priest, or otherwise, with none but Jesus Christ between them and God." Hartzler does not explicate on how these principles are worked out in the early Anabaptist Churches. Nor does he discuss an issue central to the history of Anabaptism which is church discipline. He does not explain how his idea of the right of the individual to dissent from the body is understood in relationship to the ban in the second article of Schleitheim. He apparently came under criticism for his article in the Exponent because two weeks later he wrote a response to letters he had received. He mentions five sources including the Dort Confession and the writings of Menno who testify to the fact that the right to a free conscience is the "outstanding feature" of the early Anabaptist’s beliefs. Hartzler justifies his interpretation by voicing concern for the direction of the Mennonite church: ". . . it is so easy to drop back into the old rut, the old habit of ‘overhead human authority’. The Mennonite Church, in some sections, is dangerously near the old pit from which our fathers lifted us." The "old pit" to which Hartzler is referring is the ecclesiastical system of the Roman Catholic Church. In Hartzler’s understanding of the Anabaptist tradition’s central tenet as being freedom of conscience one sees what are probably the two most influential elements in Hartzler’s thinking: First that true religious experience consists of the individual’s encounter with Christ which results in the ethical, spiritual and intellectual cultivation of the person; second is his response to the structures of church authority that formed in the old Mennonite church.

Hartzler’s theological education is important to both elements. His experiences at Union Theological Seminary and the University of Chicago come through in his understanding of the Kingdom and in his emphasis on an individual’s experience with God, which is the foundation on which his understanding of the Kingdom is built. As has already been mentioned, Hartzler was introduced to the thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher at Union. In his lectures on systematic theology Hartzler combines "the experience of Schleiermacher" and the "revelation of Ritschl." Putting them side by side he proclaims, ". . . this happy combination directed by sound reason and a dynamic faith we may rightly hope for a great and a better day in the world of religion." To Hartzler, reason and experience are correlative terms. He combines the two by claiming, "Between reason and historic faith there is no necessary conflict. Reason and experience are twin methods of the human soul in the discovery and appropriation of truth. Neither without the other can be successful." Schleiermacher’s influence on Hartzler can easily be seen in his emphasis on the immanence of God. A further connection can be made to Ritschl through Hartzler’s understanding of the church as the vehicle of salvation and the community through which the individual’s spirituality is fostered.

The tension between liberals such as Hartzler and conservatives such as Kauffman played itself out more over disputes of authority than in nuanced theological arguments regarding the nature of truth and revelation. Yoder correctly asserts "Few Mennonites at Goshen, not to mention the church at large, were prepared to assess the nuances of modernism and its critique of orthodoxy. However many Mennonites intuited accurately that modernism and liberalism had very much to do with questions about the locus of authority." Examples of the dispute over authority in the church abound in The Christian Exponent, a magazine established in 1924, mostly by Goshen alumni, to provide an alternative to the Gospel Herald." The issue of authority for Hartzler plays itself out in a very personal way in his dissertation published in 1925. Hartzler’s dissertation evoked a strong response from one of his former students at Goshen, Harold S. Bender. In a review in The Goshen College Record Bender chastises Hartzler for his historical inaccuracies and for his radical democratization of the Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition. By this time Bender had surpassed Hartzler in his knowledge of history; and tensions between Bender’s father-in-law, John Horsch, and Hartzler were reaching their climax. Bender corrects a multitude of historical inaccuracies in his review and tackles Hartzler’s view of the role of Bishops in the church head on. Bender writes concerning Hartzler’s assertion that most, if not all, of the significant movements of the past were lay driven as opposed to being instigated by bishops, "It is regrettable that this animus against the Bishops and ministers of an earlier day intrudes into this historical report; it is of a piece with the historical anachronism by which great lay activity as over against the ministry is predicated in the Church of fifty years ago by the author – an anachronism which is really an unconscious transfer of present attitudes to the past." To a certain extent, Hartzler invited such an attack by also recounting events at Goshen College when the wounds were still very fresh. He was using the topic of his dissertation to vindicate himself.

Prior to Bender’s critique there were concerns raised about his dissertation from his peers at Bluffton concerning its accuracy and its obvious bias. There also may have been some anomalies in the approval process at Hartford. The only one who came to Hartzler’s defense was the editor of The Christian Exponent, Lester Hostetler. In a rather cold and perhaps petulant exchange in the pages of the Exponent Hostetler says of Bender, "We cannot help but think that the Mennonite virtues of modesty and humility were laid aside during the composition of this broadside against the author. . ." Bender responded to Hostetler several weeks later with a letter to the Exponent which Hostetler published. But Hostetler did not let Bender have the last word. In the only response to a letter in "The Open Forum" of the Exponent from an editor, Hostetler responds by continuing to take issue with Bender over some of the historical details of Hartzler’s book.

Hartzler’s thesis and the subsequent reactions illustrate the intensity of feelings on both sides. Without taking away from Hartzler’s obvious intelligence and industriousness, one can say that Hartzler’s thinking represents a reaction to conflicting forces taking place in his life and the Mennonite Church. Several issues surface when looking over the assertions that Hartzler makes in his writings. The first and most obvious is that Hartzler’s understanding of church unity paradoxically fostered the polarization between conservative progressives and liberal progressives. In many ways Hartzler’s sermons on unity are a condemnation of the old Mennonite church for its quasi-calvinist understanding of truth and its institutionalism. Hartzler was sincere in his love for the church and in his desire for unity. However by his frequent references to the dangers of a doctrinal understanding of truth enforced by an ecclesiastical hierarchy he was indiscreetly making his feelings known toward the old Mennonite Church.

It is not unfair to say that Hartzler may have gone too far in letting his reaction to Mennonite fundamentalism shape his thinking. The most glaring example of this comes in the form of a sermon given well after his retirement on the history of the church. In an obvious reference to Harold Bender, he declares, "It does not seem fair to me, not even good historical research, to take a particular stand today and then attempt to establish that stand on the basis of the so-called ‘Anabaptist vision.’" He makes the remarkable claim that the early Anabaptists are not a good example because they were too busy avoiding persecution to implement any grand scheme of mission. He then makes a proposal, "Would not the vision of Jesus be better? Certainly the Jesus vision would be no mistake. A return to the ‘Anabaptist Vision’ seems to me, would definitely mean denominational suicide." It would be anachronistic to fault Hartzler for not realizing the significance of the Anabaptist Vision. However, the illustration does point to Hartzler’s tendency to polarize and it is also an example of a pattern of inconsistencies that pervade Hartzler’s speaking and writing. Hartzler appeals to the early Anabaptists to justify his own liberal democratic views of the gospel and then faults Bender for appealing to them as a model for the Anabaptist Vision.

However, it would be unfair to Hartzler to claim that his views of the church were shaped only by an inconsistent tendency to react to those he disagreed with in the Mennonite Church. Many themes in his writings come through from his encounter with liberal thinkers at both Union Theological Seminary and the University of Chicago in his democratic idealization of the church. One of the tenets on which he builds his foundation for Church unity is tolerance. Tolerance was one of the trademarks of theological liberalism made popular by his former professor Harry Emerson Fosdick in his sermon, Shall the Fundamentalists Win? Other prominent liberal themes come through strongly in the thought of Hartzler. There was also a general sentiment among liberal Protestants to repudiate most things Catholic. As noted above Hartzler thought the old Mennonite Church was heading in a Catholic direction by adopting the semblance of a hierarchic structure through investing more authority in bishops. Hartzler may have been using a critique of Catholicism from liberal theologians and mistakenly been applying it to the structure developed in the old Mennonite Church.

Further liberal influences can be seen from his time at the University of Chicago. One of the professors Hartzler studied under at Chicago was Shirley Jackson Case. Case started teaching at Chicago in 1908, the same year Shailer Mathews, the "evangelist of Chicago theological liberalism" became dean. Gary Dorrien notes that Mathews found in Case, "a colleague whose historical and sociological commitments blended fortuitously with his own." Hartzler’s idea of the Kingdom parallels the same concepts as espoused by Mathews and Case. At the heart of the gospel, for Case and Mathews, was the belief that Jesus can save the world by transforming it into the kingdom of God. It was a message "that seeks to transform human lives into conformity with the ideals of Jesus by bringing them into regenerating relations with God." Hartzler uses similar language when he asserts that for the individual the program of the Kingdom means "inspiration with great spiritual ideals" and for society it means "social regeneration (Sermon on the Mount); it means industrial and economic justice, and the removal of the causes of evil."

A further idea that was part of the modernist ethos and raises its head from time to time in the writings of Hartzler is an optimistic belief in democratic Christian nationalism. In fact Hartzler projects this on his understanding of what he claims is the essence of early Anabaptism, radical congregationalism founded on the ideal of freedom of conscience, with the form of Government in the United States. In responding to John Horsch’s book, Modernism in the Mennonite Church, Hartzler appeals to the structure of the U.S. Government to point out the unacceptability of the imbalance of power in the old Mennonite Church. At times, odd comparisons of figures in American history with biblical figures spring up unexpectedly. In his autobiography he notes at one point that godly men and women tend to be "out of adjustment" with society. For his examples he lists Jesus, the disciples and Abraham Lincoln. Furthermore, in a sermon given at Bethel in 1936 he makes the startling claim, "In the early days of American life the Christian Church was placed in the center of the town or village. In fact, the Church was usually the first building set up and the homes and business houses were built around the Church. Our Country grew strong and prosperous with God, Christ and the Church in the center." Reading this today, it smacks more of fundamentalism than liberalism. However, the belief that a democratic government should be undergirded by Christian values was one of the characteristics of liberal thought at the time.

This paper has set out to explore the life and thought of J.E. Hartzler as it relates to the church. One final point that must be made about Hartzler in order to keep the above discussion in context is that Hartzler was first and foremost an educator and an evangelist. He was not a strict academic, philosopher or theologian, despite his love of education. His view of the church and the Kingdom of God as it is presented here is pieced together through lectures and sermons. It does not come together in a comprehensive, logical system. One can easily discover inconsistencies when scratching below the surface of Hartzler’s thought. But to do so, would be to miss the significance of the themes and ideas that emerge in Hartzler’s thinking in the larger context of his life as a Mennonite educator and Church leader. By identifying ideas Hartzler learned and incorporated from the institutions he attended, more insight is added to the influences that shaped the Mennonite Church as a whole during the first half of the nineteenth century.