Bethlehem Split of 1881-1882
The Bethlehem Association of United Baptists was formed in 1871 as a merger of KY and WV churches. Legally the association was a division of the Zion Association of United Baptists formed 1848 off Paint Union and itself largely a Kentucky based group. Many of the churches and members came from Virginia through what is now West Virginia from the Teays Valley Association.
The Bethlehem association had different backgrounds and different ideas coming together. This led to a doctrinal disagreement and a split occurred over communion in 1880-1881. The association voted for open communion, and the side that split was closed communion. The open communion Bethlehem I will refer to as A and the other side as B, as both groups referred to themselves exclusively as Bethlehem.
According to a history document published by Bethlehem A, there were 16 founding churches: Zion, Comfort, Kiah's Creek, Antioch, Mt. Olive, Nazareth, Collossia, Salem, Guyan, Enon, Malachi, Mt. Zion, Cove Creek, Eliza, Philadelphia, and Elizabeth. Although a 17th, Fairmount was supposed to have been included per Zion’s 1870 charter, it doesn’t seem like it did. Those in bold became Bethlehem B. Some of the others may have been in Bethlehem B as well. The records are not conclusive, but a Malachi and Guyan are mentioned later in Bethlehem B.
The minutes that I have access to do not list the churches in the association during the early years. They only list the churches that sent queries to the association, had union meetings planned, had controversies, etc.
The Cause of the Split
In Acts 15 there was a controversy in the early church. The Apostle Paul and his companion Barnabas took the controversy to the elders and apostles at the church of Jerusalem for a response. After debating the church at Jerusalem alongside Peter and James settled the issue and sent letters back to the churches in question with their answer.
History is full of churches doing this ever since; asking for advice from the greater body of elders and members in times of trouble. They have been called synods, councils, association meetings, etc. Most old time Baptists do this by sending queries to their association that they first vote on in their own church.
In 1873 one such query was presented to the Bethlehem association. “Query: Who is a proper Communicants? Answer: A true believer in Jesus Christ and has been baptized in water and in union with the church which he belongs to.”
The query was asking who could take part in the communion. These issues also encompass who can preach and gain membership in the churches. The association’s answer was not restricted to being a member of any particular church in the association, but only being a “true believer” who had been baptized and in good standing with their church. This is called open communion. This is the practice of most Baptists and protestant churches. United Baptists are more divided. Many allow it and many do not.
It should be understood that open communion does not mean anybody can take the communion. It is highly unlikely these churches at the time would have allowed all denominations in, and it is certain they would not, by their own definition, have allowed non-believers to take it. It is simply a belief that born again Christians are not restricted in the eyes of God just because they go to another church. It is the belief that God has one universal Church despite worldly separations.
At the 1877 association Elder Goodwyn Lycans preached the introductory message on the communion (from 1 Corinthians, 11 23-34 according to the minutes). What his particular opinion on the subject was is not known with any certainty, but the association was divided. The same year’s minutes contain the following:
“On motion it was ordered that the ministers of this Association appoint a meeting for the purpose of coming to a common understanding on the word of God and that said meeting be held with the Salem Church, Wayne County, West Virginia, commencing on Friday before the second Sunday in December 1877 and the two following days.”
It should be stated that Goodwyn Lycans was a prominent member of the association. He is the first of 16 founding delegates of the Zion association, as well as being the first moderator of Bethlehem. He was one of the older ministers and likely had great influence.
Regarding said Salem church, he may also have been the pastor. If not at that time he certainly had been in the past. In the 1849 minutes of Zion association Goodwyn was listed as a delegate for Salem church. It also mentions how he “turned over” the service to the association moderator, which only the pastor can do.
The minutes don’t speak any more of this until 1879 when the same query was asked again: “Who are Bible communicants?”
The association’s answer was the same: “All true believers in Christ that have been buried with Christ in baptism, regenerated, and born of the Spirit.”
From here the records are one sided. Because of the split we don’t actually have records that tell our side of the story but my opinion is that these minutes are probably very accurate.
The 1881 minutes record the following:
“On motion it was ordered that A. White, G. Hollandworth and G. W. Snodgrass be appointed a committee to investigate the cause why Bros. Wm. Napier, [Goodwyn] G. Lycans and others went off from the Association of 1880 in disorder."
"The committee appointed to investigate the cause of Bro. Wm. Napier, G. Lykins, and others going off from the Bethlehem Association of 1880 would state that we find from the report of the Secretary of 1880 that Bro. Wm. Napier refused to give up the Association Book which was in his hands as the Association had ordered him to do and waiving his trial on Friday he chose to leave on Saturday Morning before the Association came to order rather than stand his trail before the Association and invited all to go with him that would, whereupon ten or twelve delegates left the Association in disorder (A. White, Ger Hollandworth, G. W. Snodgrass, Committee)."
So in 1880 several delegates left the association meeting. The complete details are not known, but these things are usually wrapped up in a lot of strife and personal resentment.
The Mt. Olive, Kiah’s Creek, Zion, Cove Creek, Antioch, Comfort, Salem, Enon, and Mt. Zion churches did not attend the 1881 association and the association ordered a committee to investigate.
"On motion it was ordered that the Association appoint ministers to go to each church that had not represented themselves at this Association and that Bro. G. Moore visit Mt. Olive, Kiers Creek, and Zion, and that Bro. P. Hager visit Cove Creek, Antioc and Comfort; and Bro J. H. Hollandworth visit Salem, Enon, and Mt. Zion to find the cause why they have not represented themselves.”
The 1882 minutes report on only 2 of these churches. G. Moore was not present to give his report. Phillip Hager did not visit any churches due to “high waters and other hindering causes.” J. Hollandworth visited 2 churches that he claimed wished to remain in the association. The churches are not named, and I don’t have access to the next year’s minutes on that side, but he was tasked with visiting Salem, Enon, and Mt. Zion. Enon stayed with Bethlehem B so I assume he was talking about Salem and Mt. Zion.
The churches that left the association formed their own Bethlehem which I call Bethlehem B. We believed in what is called close communion, in that only members of the churches in the association and official correspondence can commune together.
Our records pick up again in 1883. So there are 3 years missing. Whether we met and had minutes printed during those years is not known.
The churches mentioned in the 1883 minute are Comfort, Mt. Olive, Antioch, Cove Creek, and Enon. The 1884 minutes add Kiah’s Creek, Mt. Sinai, and Zion.
I have been told by two brothers, one now deceased, that our early records were lost to a flood. At some point the brothers went to Bethlehem A and copied their records of our missing early years. This would explain why there are some gaps. They would not have our side’s minutes after the split.
The Future
Goodwyn Lycans is never mentioned again in our records, and I believe he went elsewhere. Already an older man, he died not too many years after all of this. He founded and pastored many churches in Zion, Bethlehem and elsewhere.
Following this split both associations had growth and prosperity in their future.
Bethlehem A reached about 50 churches or so in the middle of the 20th century and seem to have been quite prosperous. They are in Lincoln, Logan, Wayne, and Cabell Counties of West Virginia.
At some point they gave an arm for CenterPoint United Baptist Association. I have preached in one of their churches just across the Ohio river from Huntington. I have visited several Bethlehem A churches as well. We are nearly identical despite what some claim and they have shown themselves true brethren to me.
Bethlehem A had a split in the mid-20th century and some of those churches formed the Ohio Valley Association. Initially they did not correspond, but they made up maintained fellowship for a while.
Bethlehem A is also part of the National Association of United Baptist and they correspond with several other associations.
Bethlehem B grew as well, although never reached the same success. We seemed to have peaked in 1959 with 1614 members and 17 churches. The Zion Association stayed in fellowship with us, as did Paint Union and some other associations we used to correspond with.
I think one of the things the hindered Bethlehem B was the closed minded and restrictive ways that were adopted.
At various points the association condemned Sunday schools, would not receive members from other churches without re-baptizing them, forbade preaching in any church not in the association or in official correspondence, forbidding women to even trim their hair, and although it’s never brought up in the minutes, the idea of women wearing pants would have seemed terrible to some.
The later splits show this as well. The split in 1907-1908 was over masonic lodges. One side supported them, and one side thought they were evil. And in the late 1900s the Alpha Davis Bethlehem (another split of many of Bethlehem B’s core churches) went as far as condemning their members carrying bibles to church for the purpose of bible studies. The Calvary Association (another split) less than 10 years after leaving Old Bethlehem split again with absolutely no doctrinal disputes, it was just arguments and strife amongst some of the brethren.
If the churches are to be here in the future for our descendants and grow again (which is vital, even though many seem content to let the churches wither as a parched stalk so long as the “old ways” are clung to) love, compassion, and knowledge of the bible is going to have to become the focal point. The guiding message, our purpose and creed must be to live as Christians and nothing else. Where there is no vision the people perish Proverbs 29:18.
It’s ironic that, just as our churches have split, so too in the same chapter of Acts that Paul and Barnabas helped settle the churches’ dispute, they ended up splitting themselves, going their separate ways and seemingly never working together again, although the Holy Ghost itself had joined them. God knows our weakness, but He is Greater.
-Chris Hall