JOHNDAVID BRUNK, 1872 - 1926:
HISLIFE AND MUSICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THEMENNONITE CHURCH
S. SCOTT ROBERTS
Abstract
John David Brunk (1872–1926) was aprominent figure in matters of Mennonite worship who worked to maintain a highlevel of quality in the musical materials of the church. Through various teaching opportunitiesin several churches and schools, he revealed his philosophy of worship andshared his vision of excellence in church music.
The document begins with a short overview ofthe origin of the Mennonite church, and some perspectives regarding the historyof worship music in the Mennonite church. A biographical sketch follows, presenting some major events ofBrunk’s heritage, education, and career. The body of the paper closes with Brunk’s contributionsto the church, examining his musical style, his work as a hymnal editor for thechurch, and his service to the church as an educator.
While the majority of Brunk’s musicremains unpublished, most of his published hymn tunes are included in the firstappendix. The second appendixincludes various documents pertaining to Brunk’s life and work as amusician. The third appendixcontains Brunk’s writings on the function of music in the life of aChristian.
Introduction
John David Brunk, born March 13, 1872, was a man whoeffected change in the people around him. He held a position of influence as a teacher whereby he had theopportunity to impart his musical techniques in piano, voice, and conducting, toa broad spectrum of pupils. Hefounded the Goshen College School of Music, Goshen, Indiana, and was theprincipal instructor in that division of the college. As an educator, he trained students who were in the laststages of formal study and ready to begin their careers in the field ofmusic. Through his variousinstructional opportunities, he influenced music students, church musicians,and the church laity.
Brunk’s reputation as a musician and educator wasestablished early in his life. Oneaspect of that status came through the training he received at two of the topconservatories of his day: the American Conservatory in Chicago and the NewEngland Conservatory in Boston. In1902, at the age of thirty, he served as editor on the committee that worked topublish the Church and Sunday School Hymnal. He was the composer of thirty-one hymn tunes that have beenpublished in Mennonite hymnals. Hewas also the author of Educational Vocal Studies, a music book that he used insinging schools, published by the Mennonite Publishing House.[2] To list all of the music he composed, there would be nearly100 additional titles, primarily hymn tunes, which had been prepared for anunpublished work called The Salvation Story; The Life of Christ in SacredSong.[3]
Brunk lived in a culture that was ready for change. Each of the three Mennonite hymnalspublished between 1902 and 1927 were printed to disseminate musical materialsof stylistic and doctrinal propriety within the church. Committees met to help direct theoverall course of the music used in the church. While an appointed few worked to guide the forward progressof Mennonite music, the people within the church sought to maintain theirmusical heritage. They did this,in part, by gathering for singing normals or singing schools. Brunk had the opportunity to travel toMaryland and Pennsylvania, through Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, and as farsouth as Alabama to lead these normals and to assist the various churches inthe study of musical techniques and in the promotion of songs of discerniblequality.
To measure the overall influence of Brunk and his music onthe Mennonite Church would indeed be difficult. Brunk worked diligently to ensure that the quality ofmusical materials and musical performance was of a high order. To take a broad, generalizing look atMennonite Church music today, one might wonder about the significance of a manlike Brunk at all, for his hymn-tunes are rarely used and the principles thathe worked to establish have greatly diminished. The fact remains, however, that Brunk contributed greatly tothe music of the Mennonite Church in his time. Through his teaching career, his musical leadership withinthe church, and his efforts providing hymnals and hymn-tunes for the church,his influence was certainly profound.
This thesis begins with a historical overview of Mennonitereligion and hymnody, to establish some perspective on Brunk’s philosophyof music and hymn contributions. The biographical presentation of major events in Brunk’s lifecontains information pertaining to Brunk’s family and heritage, hiseducation in music, and his teaching career. Considerable attention is also given to Brunk’spublishing ventures and his compositions.
The Archives of the Mennonite Church, Goshen, Indiana,hereafter referenced as AMC, has been an invaluable source of information inthe composition of this paper. With the limited selection of published materials pertainingspecifically to Brunk, a large portion of this work is a perspective on Brunk’slife based on the holdings of the AMC collection. Several documents from the AMC holdings have been includedin their entirety in various appendices to this document. Another extremely important resource inthis biographical endeavor has been James C.Hostetler’s unpublished paper “J. D. Brunk--A Biography andAutobiography of Samuel Brunk (Father of J. D. Brunk).”[4] Hostetler cites interviews withBrunk’s relatives and other original sources that have not been availableto this author.
Finally, the arduous task of writing a formal paper is madesomewhat less strenuous when the topic is found to be of particularinterest. The writer fondlyrecalls his own rich experiences with the tradition of Mennonite hymnodyimparted to him some years ago. The full, resonant sounds of hymns and gospel songs as sung by somerelatively small groups of worshippers still echo in this heart and mind. Regardless of the scope of his impact,John David Brunk, along with many other men like him, laid the foundation forsuch experiences.
Historical Perspective–An Overview
The Mennonite church dates back to the early part of thesixteenth century. MartinLuther’s protest against the Roman Catholic Church in October of 1517 wasa representative act symbolizing a variety of extant Protestant movements. The Anabaptists, who had been inexistence before the Reformation, were a group who renounced the Catholicritual of infant baptism, and believed that an individual should be baptized as“a personal voluntary act based upon repentance and faith in JesusChrist.” This belief caused people to refer to them as“rebaptizers,” or Anabaptists. The Anabaptist movement was one of many parallel movementsthat became more widely recognized through the efforts of men like Luther.
The Mennonites were born out of a movement in Zurich, Switzerland,led by Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). Zwingli, like Luther, was a Catholic priest who became troubled by thepractices of the Church. UnderZwingli’s leadership, the city council of Zurich instituted the followingreforms: 1) the abolition of the mass, 2) the removal of images from thechurches, and 3) the directive that the clergy should “preach nothingexcept what they could prove by the testimony of evangelical doctrine and theauthority of Holy Scripture.” Zwingli’s reforms led to the exclusion of all finearts in the worship service, so that the practices of the church would belimited to only those items specifically mentioned in the writings of the NewTestament.
Conrad Grebel (c. 1498-1526) was reared in Zurich and eventually subscribedto the teachings of Zwingli. Headopted Zwingli’s doctrine and remained with Zwingli’s branch ofProtestant thought for a little more than a year, until he became impatientwith Zwingli’s philosophy of reform. Even though Zwingli was more extreme than Luther in hisreformational objectives, Grebel felt that Zwingli should be more active inpromoting and propagating their beliefs. At the same time, Grebel was critical of the fact that Zwingli would goto war to defend religious principles.
Despite these differences, the two men tried to come to aresolution. In the end, adifference in two primary areas led to a termination of their union. The first area involved Zwingli's heavyreliance on the Zurich City Council for the implementation of reforms. Grebel believed that the church shouldbe free from state intervention regarding matters of faith and practice. The second area centered onGrebel’s understanding of baptism, that is, only a believer–not aninfant–should be baptized. On January 21, 1525, the Council ordered that Grebel should no longermeet privately with other men of similar beliefs, an order by which Grebelcould not abide. “What is now known as the Mennonite Church was the firstfree church of modern church history,” for they formed a church no longerunder the control of a state system like the Zurich City Council.[8]
Grebel’s ideas spread rapidly through Europe by thediligent work of many men who faced persecution from the state for theirbeliefs. Significant among thesemen is Michael Sattler, who led the Swiss Anabaptist movement, principallythrough his writings, after Grebel’s untimely death.[9] Sattler did much to establish and clarify the tenets of thisnew doctrinal sect. MelchiorHofmann, a Lutheran preacher, carried the torch of reformation to theNetherlands, where his influence helped to establish a peace-seeking group ofbelievers called Obbenites, named after their leader Obbe Philips.[10] This group, as a free church, eventually came to conclusionsthat differed from Hofmann’s, and more closely resembled Grebel’sand Sattler’s. Menno Simons, from whom Mennonites are named, was aCatholic Priest from the Netherlands, who renounced Catholicism in 1536 andallied himself with, and eventually led, the Obbenites until 1561.[11]
These separate factions,collectively titled the Swiss Brethren, or Swiss Anabaptists, establishedseveral fundamental tenets.
• Only those believers shall be baptized who arewalking in the resurrection.
• Members who return to a life of sin and refuse toreturn to faithful discipleship must be disowned as members.
• Those who wish to break bread together must beunited in faith and believer’s baptism before partaking of theLord’s Supper.
• Christians must live a holy life which isseparated from the sins of the surrounding society.
• The congregation shall be served by pastors. Their duties are to preach the Word ofGod, preside at the Lord’s Supper celebrations, and provide generaloversight for the members.
• Christian disciples must, under all circumstances,take the attitude of the suffering Savior. They shall never use force, violence, and warfare.
• In strict obedience to the teachings of Christ,members must take no oaths of any sort, not even the civil oath. They are to affirm the truth.[12]
While itis certainly true that individual leaders in various geographical locationscreated their own doctrinal emphases based on their interpretations ofscriptural truth, Mennonites used the above beliefs to develop all succeedingarticles of faith.
One of the first Mennonite emigrants to America was PieterCornelisz Plockhoy, who sailed, with other Mennonite families, from Amsterdamin 1663 and eventually settled in Zwaanandael (Swan Valley), the region nowknown as Lewes, Delaware. Other Mennonites were in America at that time, and althoughnone are named specifically, J. C. Wenger, an authority on Mennonite history,indicates that there were Mennonites from the Netherlands in New Amsterdam asearly as the 1640s. Because ofvarious circumstances and hardships, Mennonites in New Amsterdam and Delawarenever established an exclusive meeting place in those locations. The first permanent Mennonitesettlement was established in Germantown, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia,in 1683. Mennonites there built ameetinghouse for their worship services and named Willem Ruttinghuysen thefirst minister. After a period of wandering and persecution from Britishsoldiers, Plockhoy was eventually united with his Mennonite associates inGermantown in 1694.
Mennonites in America brought hymnals with them from theirvarious European communities, indicating that this group that originated withZwingli and his abolition of fine arts in worship, reevaluated its philosophyof music in worship. BalthasarHubmaier was one of the first Anabaptist leaders to support singing inchurch. He cautioned that singingbe done from the heart, as a man’s offering to the Lord. Peter Riedemann, a leader in theHutterite movement, warned that singing for “carnal pleasure (ausFleisches Lust) orfor the beauty of sound is a serious sin.”[17] Many of the significant founders of the Anabaptist movement,were also notable Anabaptist hymn writers, including Sattler, Menno Simons,Grebel, Hubmaier, and Hans Hut.
The early Dutch Anabaptist hymnals were Lietboecxken vanden Offer des Heeren(1563), Veelderhande Liedekens (1560), and Een nieu Liedenboeck (1562). The Anabaptists published two German hymnals in 1564. The first and most notable was Ausbund,Das ist: Etliche schöne Christliche Lieder, which survived twelve reprints inEurope, the latest in 1838, and is still used by the Amish in the UnitedStates. The Ausbund was used by the Swiss Brethren inSwitzerland and South Germany. Thesecond, used in the Lower Rhine region, was Ein schön GesangbüchleinGeistlicher Lieder zusammengetragen aus dem alten und Neuen Testament durchfromme Christen und Liebhaber Gottes welcher Hiefür etliche seind gewesenaber noch viel darzu getan welche nie in truck ausgangen.[19]
For the Anabaptists, singing was not just an activity ofthe church service. During theperiods of religious persecution from the State Church, the Anabaptists sang toexpress their joy in the midst of tribulation. While in prison, singing was used as a way to establishsolidarity among the prisoners, and also as a tactical means of communicatingwith those outside the prison. In summarizing the textual content of their songs, ChristianNeff said,
Aflood of religious songs poured over the young brotherhood like a vivifying andrefreshing stream. The songsbecame the strongest attractive force for the brotherhood. They sang themselves into the hearts ofmany, clothed in popular tunes. They were mostly martyr songs, which breathed an atmosphere of readinessto die and a touching depth of faith. And those that did not report on martyr steadfastness admonished thelistener to a devout faith, which was to prove itself in love. Sanctification and its demonstration inlife is its glorious content.
It seemsthat hymns were used by the Anabaptists to encourage one another, and notnecessarily to proselytize those around them. Harold S. Bender summarizes the doctrinal identity of theirhymns when he states that
Seldomdo the Anabaptist hymns have a dominant didactic or doctrinal character,although doctrine is not absent. Sebastian Franck’s characterization of Anabaptist doctrine asteaching nothing but “faith, love, and the cross” (Chronica, 1531) may well be appliedto their hymns.
The discussion of Mennonite hymnody in the United Statesbegins with the Ausbund (1564), the German hymnal that was brought to America with Mennoniteemigrants in the late 1600s. Itwas reprinted in an American edition in Germantown, 1742, and contained hymnsof Anabaptist martyrs and prisoners. Early in the nineteenth century, the Mennonite churchabandoned the use of the Ausbund, while the Old Order Amish groups continued using andrevising it. The Ausbund was the first Mennonite bookpublished in America.
Since other hymnbooks were used by various groups of Mennonites,it became clear to Mennonite leaders that a new hymnal was needed. Due to some disagreements regarding thequantity and quality of the contents, two hymnals were published for thechurch: Die Kleine Geistliche Harƒe der Kinde Zions (Germantown, 1803) and EinUnpartheyisches Gesangbuch (Lancaster, 1804). Otherhymnbooks in the German language were published in America throughout thenineteenth century, each in text-only format.[25]
The first English hymnal of the Mennonite church waspublished at Harrisonburg, Virginia, in 1847.[26] It wasreprinted several times–its last reprint date being 1948–and wastitled A Selection of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. From the Most Approved Authors, Suitedto the Various Occasions of Public Worship and Private Devotion of the Churchof Christ by a Committee of Mennonites. Twoconferences were established to serve as an advisory group to local,semi-independent church bodies. Under the titles of the General Conference Mennonite Church and theMennonite Church, these two conferences collaborated on the Church andSunday School Hymnal, A Collection of Hymns and Sacred Songs, Appropriate forChurch Services, Sunday Schools, and General Devotional Exercises, Compiledunder the Direction of a Committee appointed by Mennonite Conferences, creating the first officialEnglish hymnal of the Mennonite Church. This hymnal was published in Elkhart, Indiana, and Freeport,Illinois, in 1902.
John David Brunk’s Life
The Brunk name has been prominent in Mennonite circles for thepast three centuries. Alsoappearing as Bronk, or Bronck, the name has been “found among theMennonites in the Palatinate about 1700, and among the American Mennonitessince the last quarter of the 18th century.”[28] The Brunk heritage in the Mennonite Church has been one ofpositive leadership in matters of ministerial authority and musicalsupervision. Jacob Brunk, one ofthe first of the Brunks in America, settled in Pennsylvania in 1773, and latermoved to Virginia. George Brunk(born 1831) was significant in Mennonite history because his descendantsoccupied ministerial positions in the church. Christian H. Brunk (1845-1921) made significant musicalcontributions to the church including several hymn compositions and work on thecommittee that produced the Church and Sunday School Hymnal (1902).[29]
John David Brunk was born near Harrisonburg,Virginia, on March 13, 1872, to Samuel and Susanna (Hartman) Brunk. Samuel Brunk, a farmer, was adescendent of the Funk family. TheFunks were active in church issues, publishing, and in church music. Samuel’s brother Christian H.Brunk established a musical career that, while not to the extent of what hisnephew would accomplish, maintained the general parameters in which John DavidBrunk would later work.
Susanna Hartman Brunk came from the lineage of ChristianBurkholder, a Mennonite who realized that it would be best for his family toleave Switzerland and accept the new opportunities that America afforded. Christian died in Europe in March of1775, before journeying to America. Later that year, his family traveled to Philadelphia and settled inLancaster County. PeterBurkholder, Christian’s second son, eventually moved his family to DaleEnterprise, Virginia. The family,as it relates to Susanna Brunk, remained in Virginia from that timeforward. Nearly 100 years aftertheir immigration, John David Brunk was born, the great-great grandson of PeterBurkholder.
On April 6, 1951, Jacob Hartman wrote to James C. Hostetlerregarding some of the significant life events of J. D. Brunk.[30] Hartman and Brunk were cousins, and the letter providesvaluable insight into Brunk’s life. In the letter, Hartman addresses Brunk’s early education andmusical training, some of Brunk’s non-vocational activities, as well as Brunk’sfamily life. Many of the followingdetails are derived from Hartman’s letter and Hostetler’sdocumentation of those events, which is included in Appendix 2, Document 19.
The Brunk home into which John David would be born waslocated in Rockingham County, Virginia, near the Weavers Church. John David was the third of fivechildren born to Samuel and Susanna. Two of his sisters died at a very young age, Sarah at eighth months, andLessie when only two years old. Ofthe remaining children, Anna was the oldest, John was the next oldest, and theyoungest was Laura. While JohnDavid apparently was never sick enough to be threatened with death, hischildhood, as well as his adult life, were plagued with physical infirmity.
As a boy, Brunk’s sickness kept him from helping onthe farm, at least to the extent to which other boys his age would have beenexpected. Consequently,Brunk’s childhood activities centered around his education, bothacademically and musically. About100 yards from the Weavers Church was a one-room schoolhouse where Brunk andhis sisters were educated. Theschool was called the Weaver School, due to its proximity to the Church, notbecause of any affiliation with the Church. It was at this location that Brunk received the typical educationof a public school student in that day. His musical training, however, was not as typical.
Brunk’s physician recommended, upon SamuelBrunk’s request, that he begin taking organ lessons. This was most likely an attempt to helpprepare him for some occupation other than farming. To accommodate the requirements of enrollment in organlessons, the family had to purchase an organ for use at home. Because conservative Mennonites opposedthe use of musical instruments, the task of persuading the other church membersof the appropriateness and necessity of this purchase fell to Brunk’sfather. Upon the resolution ofthat matter, Brunk began receiving lessons from James Ruebush, who taught atthe Shenandoah Collegiate Institute, Dayton, Virginia. Ruebush remained his teacher for thenext few years while Brunk pursued other general music courses.
Ruebush had a profound impact on Brunk and his futurecareer. Not only was he thefoundational figure who developed Brunk’s musicianship, but he alsoinfluenced Brunk’s desire to teach music. Ruebush traveled extensively in the South, leading singingschools for the purpose of improving the quality of congregational churchmusic. This kind of activity wouldbe the next major aspect of Brunk’s musical background.
Ruebush, as a singing school director, helped to create thedesire within Brunk to teach music and musical values to churchcongregations. Brunk taughtsinging schools, which had reached their height of popularity in the secondhalf of the nineteenth century, throughout his lifetime. Brunk’s first singing school washeld on December 3, 1891, at Pleasant Grove, in Washington County,Maryland. He used a book entitled TheStar of Bethlehem (1889)that contained songs by Ruebush, Aldine Kieffer, and J. H. Hall.[31] The importance of this endeavor is two-fold: it stands asthe first of many educational ventures in Brunk’s life, but probably moremomentous to Brunk as the means by which he established a relationship withMary Kate Martin, the young lady who would eventually become his bride.[32] Brunk led singing schools in the summers of 1892, 1894, and1895, as well as many short periods of time when his teaching schedule affordedthe opportunity.
Brunk joined the church and was baptized at the ageof seventeen. Jacob Hartmanalludes to this event in his letter, and Hostetler clarifies the circumstancesin his biography. In his letter,Hartman mentions a class of forty-five students, which is the group that wasbaptized. Hostetler cites an 1889issue of Herald of Truth when he mentions that forty-five people were baptized atWeaver’s Church, and that Brunk was one of the youngest.[33]
The following dates regardingBrunk’s education and career were listed in a paper written by Brunk'sdaughter shortly after his death.
| 1895 | Attended West Central Academy, Mt. Clinton, Virginia |
| 1896 | Attended New England Conservatory, Boston, Massachusetts |
| 1897 | Married Mary Kate Martin, September 2; Taught at West Central Academy for three years |
| 1901 | Taught at Bridgewater College, Bridgewater, Virginia, for five years |
| 1905 | Attended the American Conservatory, Chicago, Illinois |
| 1906 | Taught at Goshen College, Goshen, Indiana until 1914 |
| 1915 | Field Work for the Church until 1917. |
Based on her information, Brunk received the remainder ofhis education from three institutions: West Central Academy, Mt. Clinton,Virginia; New England Conservatory, Boston, Massachusetts; and AmericanConservatory, Chicago, Illinois. According to Hostetler, Brunk also attended the Shenandoah Institute duringthe winters of 1893-1894 and 1895-1896, studying piano, vocal music and harmonyunder the tutelage of Ruebush. The AMC collection contains two of Brunk’s diplomas: aCertificate of Proficiency in the Junior Course from West Central Academy, anda Certificate of Completion in the Music in the Public Schools division, fromthe New England Conservatory.
James Ruebush was probably Brunk’s most influentialteacher, but other mentors were also important. While at the West Central Academy, Brunk studied advancedtheory and voice under the direction of S. G. Kline. Walter Perkins, one of Brunk’s teachers in Chicago,later came to Goshen to give a concert at Goshen College. Adolf Weidig, another of Brunk’steachers from Chicago, taught theory and composition, two subjects which becameincreasingly important in Brunk’s life.
His education prepared him well for his two-fold career inmusic education and church music. Looking back on his accomplishments, it is difficult to divide the twoareas of his vocation. One of thefundamental purposes of his work in church music was education. As mentioned previously, he traveled frequently to conduct singing schools,providing lay people in the church with some needed musical background for theimprovement of congregational singing. He also lectured on several occasions on the values of music as appliedto Christian life. Conversely, hiseducational efforts, it could be argued, were directed toward sending qualifiedstudents back into the churches for the development of church music.
His formal career in educationbegan with his teaching position at West Central Academy in Mt. Clinton,Virginia. He held this positionfor three years beginning in 1897. Immediately after his period of study at the New England Conservatory,and in the same year in which he was married, he joined the faculty at WestCentral Academy and became the Director of Music. The 1898-1899 Catalogue of the Officers and Students, liststhe Order of the Day.
| 6:30 a.m.–Rising Bell | 1:00 p.m.–School Session |
| 7:00 a.m.–Breakfast | 4:00 p.m.–Recreation |
| 7:45 a.m.–Chapel Bell | 5:40 p.m.–Call Bell |
| 8:30 a.m.–Chapel Exercises | 6:00 p.m.–Supper |
| 9:00 a.m.–School Session | 7:00 p.m.–Study Bell |
| 12:00 p.m.–Dinner | 10:00 p.m.–Retiring Bell |
While this order of events does notspecifically list Brunk’s musical activities as faculty member, it doesshed light on the schedule he had to keep, both as a faculty member andpreviously as a student. It wouldbe reasonable to assume that his daily duties as Director of Music wouldinvolve the musical activities of the Chapel Exercises, as well as generalmusic instruction and private music lessons.
Brunk’s next position was at Bridgewater College,Bridgewater, Virginia. In the1901-1902 Bridgewater College Catalogue, Brunk is listed as serving as“Professor in Bridgewater College, 1900–.”[38] This datecontradicts the previous date listed by Brunk’s daughter as 1901. In any event, Brunk taught in the musicdepartment at Bridgewater College for five years.
The first surviving employment contract with Bridgewater isfor the year 1901-1902. The documentlists his contractual responsibilities at Bridgewater as teaching piano,harmony, voice culture, vocal music, and what else shall be necessary in hisdepartment. The BridgewaterCatalogue provides some explanation of the nature of his duties in theseareas. Voice culture, as a programof study, involved a comprehensive study of vocal techniques, including breathmanagement, resonance, vocal production, and a systematic curriculum of vocalexercises. Vocal music was moregeneral, and was designed to be a practical singing study for allmusicians. Harmony is listed as apart of the program of study for the Normal Course, the division of musicinstruction for church musicians, and for the Music Teacher’s Course.[40]
During the 1901-1902 school year, Brunk served as theacting head of the music department in place of E. T. Hildebrand, who was awaydoing graduate work. Brunk becameacquainted with Hildebrand during his time at the West Central Academy and cameto Bridgewater at Hildebrand’s request. Brunk started there as one of only three faculty members atthe college. Additional responsibilitiesnot listed in his Bridgewater contract included “solfeggio, history ofmusic, methods of teaching, directing, and counterpoint and oratoriostyle.”
Several aspects of Brunk’s responsibilities wererecorded in the contract. Bridgewater College expected Brunk to spend part of his vacationcanvassing the area for prospective students and corresponding with them as hehad opportunity. As an educator,Brunk was required to keep a detailed ledger of all student activities. He had to document all absences, entrances,excuses, and withdrawals, and immediately notify the President of any absences orirregularities. The contractstated that the College would appreciate extra assistance of any kind,particularly improvement in the singing at the Sunday evening chapel service.
A very detailed description of the contract’sfinancial terms was included at the end of the contract. His compensation from the college was$375 for the nine-and-a-half-month session, along with 33.3% of all the music departmentproceeds above $300. In additionto providing Brunk’s salary, the college agreed to pay certain advertisingcosts for the department and to publish and stamp 1,300 catalogues. The above wages seem to be typical forhis position based on the three contract agreements included in the AMCcollection. The 1905 contract between Brunk and Bridgewater listsBrunk’s salary as $195 for the third term of the session, with noadditional compensation. While nofinancial records exist to verify Brunk’s living expenses, he seems tohave lived simply, not acquiring great wealth as a professor, and notcomplaining about lack of money.
After this position at Bridgewater, Brunk decided topursue his personal education at the Boston Conservatory. He had already completed theapplication process and had been approved for re-admission to the musicprogram, when he began to consider the American Conservatory in Chicago. When he received word from the ChicagoMission that his family could reside there while he pursued his studies, theplans were completed, and they traveled to Chicago. While at the American Conservatory, Brunk was presented withthe opportunity of founding the School of Music at Goshen College in Goshen,Indiana. He received two lettersfrom Goshen College while he considered the opportunity there.
Both letters from the college were written in response toBrunk’s questions. On March6, 1905, N. E. Byers wrote on behalf of the college to inform Brunk that hewould be the director and sole teacher of the music department.[43] Byers guaranteed a total income of at least $270 for theterm of thirty-six weeks. Theremainder of the brief letter focused on persuading Brunk to forego hiseducation and come right away. Byers closed the letter by writing that Brunk would probably be able tofind other work in the area if the music department was not large enough tosupport Brunk as a full-time teacher.
In the second letter, dated January 31, 1906, C. K.Hostetler represented Goshen College. He presented several specific answers regarding the financial matters ofthe music department and the logistics of its operation. Because they had set Brunk’ssalary so low, the college agreed to supply the rooms, instruments, andadvertising for the department at no charge. In return, Brunk was expected to bring revenue to thecollege through each aspect of his teaching. In conclusion, Hostetler included a significant caveat. He told Brunk that if the departmentdid not grow by the end of the year, or if it did not support itselffinancially, the college would permanently close the music division.
While by today’s standards it may be difficult tounderstand why one would agree to embark on such an insecure opportunity, Brunkchose to leave the American Conservatory in Chicago to become the founder anddirector of the music department in Goshen. He served in this capacity for the following eightyears. In accepting Goshen’soffer, Brunk simultaneously ended his personal music education and began anendeavor that would secure his prominence as a musical leader for the Mennonites.
Brunk contracted to lead Goshen’s music department onMarch 16, 1906. Hiscontractual obligations involved doing all the teaching in the musicdepartment. This fact serves asthe substantive evidence that Brunk was a well-rounded musician and that he wasviewed as such by the people around him. Several aspects included in the preceding correspondence between the twoparties were listed in the agreement. The college would pay for the required rooms and instruments, as well asadvertise and work to promote and develop the music department. Brunk agreed to use his influence topromote other departments of the college and to allow any off-duty teaching tobe for the benefit of the college.
Detailed financial arrangements were listed in thecontract. Tuition and course feeswere recorded for private and collective instruction, both by class and byterm. The college stipulated thatacademic tuition would be free to full-course music students due to the factthat voice lessons were free to students in other divisions. Another significant financial aspect ofthis contract is that Brunk’s pay was set at $12.50 per week, as opposedto the original proposal of $10. There is no indication that enrollment projections justified theincrease, for Brunk was still being asked to do all the teaching. One can only speculate that Brunk musthave requested the increase sometime between the January 31 letter from C. K.Hostetler and the March 16 signing of the contract.
Under Brunk’s direction, the Goshen College School ofMusic soon published a bulletin that described the various programs of study atGoshen and the underlying philosophies of instruction in these areas. While it must be assumed that Brunkwould have to work under the general leadership of the president of thecollege, thereby adopting the institution’s overall philosophy, it canalso be assumed that the material contained within the music bulletin providesa clear portrait of Brunk’s beliefs and educational objectives.
The first tenet outlined by Brunk in the school’sbulletin is that proper music education involves “a variety of studiesdiffering in character to bring out and develop the many phases of the musicalmind.” Specifically, Brunk believed that the serious student ofmusic should be educated in theory, voice, and instrumental music. Regarding the general topic of musiceducation, Brunk felt that all students should study music as an integral partof their total education because music contains a fundamental value to allpeople; it “refines and cultures.”[46] Brunk also included his belief in the importance of a strongwork ethic. He wrote “onemust have a thorough training in the art to such an extent that in an originalway that person may assert himself as an authority in his profession, . . .[and] any education is an impossibility to those who will not work, and workhard and long.”
Regarding his personal goals forthe music department he was developing, his daughter, Fannie, listed threespecifics. She wrote that hedesired
A) Toprepare for the conservatory those who cared to go on in further study ofmusic. Pupils from Goshen College,while he was teaching here, were accepted with full transference of credits atthe two greatest conservatories of America, The American Conservatory atChicago, and the New England Conservatory at Boston.
B) Toteach his classes and private lessons only the best of music, to show studentsthe difference between good and poor music, and to show his pupils that aknowledge of music was needed for a well-rounded education. And
C) Toteach those that were not enrolled in his classes or choruses by bringing tothe college each year two or more good artists, by presenting the best possibleprograms by his chorus and private pupils, and by selecting carefully, hymnsfor chapel and church services.
In the first year of teaching, 1906-1907, Brunk hadtwenty-three students. Thefollowing year the number increased to twenty-five. In addition to a busy schedule of private instruction, herehearsed a fifty-voice choir every Tuesday evening. Some of the first worksperformed by Brunk’s chorus were The Holy CityandHaydn’s The Creation.[49]
Brunk gave a vocal recital for the college in April of1907. A published review of theperformance from the Goshen College Record stated that
Professor Brunk possesses a rich, lyric, tenorvoice which showed to the best advantage perhaps in the Mendelssohnnumber. However, he is tooconscientious a musician to appeal to the gallery. Any of the little arts of singers are designed to catch thepopular ear rather than to give a faithful interpretation of thecomposer’s thought–an un-musicianly sacrifice on the altar ofpersonal vanity. AlthoughProfessor Brunk was still suffering from his recent illness, the solos weregiven with warmth of feeling and a faithfulness of the true musician’s purposethat held the audience to close attention throughout the evening. Schubert’s songs, comprising“Thou Art My Peace,” “Who Is Sylvia,” “Death andthe Maiden,” and “The Erl-King,” the last two numbers showingthe singer’s ability to the best advantage in this class of music. The presentation of the differentcharacters in quick succession calls for a wide range of tone quality and ofcompass, and was barring the higher crescendos, splendidly performed.[50]
The teaching load that Brunk carried through his years asProfessor and Director of the School of Music seemed to be veryconsistent. He had twenty-threestudents in 1908-09, twenty-two in 1910-11, and twenty-one in both terms from1911 to 1913. By the end ofthe 1913 term, Ella DeCamp, J. Claude Brunk, Sylvia Bontrager, Ernest G.Hesser, and Gerard Dinkeloo had all assisted Brunk as faculty members of theSchool of Music. During these years he continued his singing-school work whenpossible, attended performances at the concert halls in the area, andincreasingly devoted his time to composing educational and liturgical materialsfor his use.
Brunk frequently had to deal with the effects of physicalillness. As a boy, his frailtycaused his father to direct him toward a career in music instead of farming. In the summer of 1913, Brunk’sphysician strongly recommended that Brunk take a leave of absence from GoshenCollege. Brunk temporarily steppeddown and resided with his family in Harrisonburg for the year. While at Harrisonburg, he continued toteach music from a studio that he opened in a bank building. He led a community chorus and taughtprivate voice, piano, and an occasional theory lesson.
Through correspondence, Brunk still influenced thehappenings at Goshen. A letterfrom Brunk, addressed to Miss Sylvia Bontrager, provides insight toBrunk’s physical condition during this period, and of the type of musicalguidance that he gave as the Music School’s Director.[53] He stated that it was difficult for him to keep up with theduties of any given day, and that, excluding himself, each member of his familywas well. He gladly responded toMiss Bontrager’s inquiries and wrote of his desire to be back in Goshen. He gave specific advice regarding twostudents, listing specific course work that they should follow. He also provided recommendationsconcerning the techniques and repertoire that the students should learn.
Brunk remained in Harrisonburg for the year, teaching andconducting, at which time he had to temporarily end his relationship with GoshenCollege, due to his continued illness. Eventually Brunk’s health improved and he began toconsider other opportunities of musical service for the Mennonite Church.
Fannie Brunk’s timeline of events lists“Field Work for the Church” from 1915 to 1917. While she does not provide any of thedetails of that obligation, a single document in the AMC collection providesinsight into some of the responsibilities that Brunk held. The document, titled “InformationBlank,” was a form that Brunk and others within the church sent out togather information relative to prevailing conditions and trends in worshipmusic. Individuals in regional locations were asked to respond toquestions about the musical leadership, the quality and quantity of musicalperformance, and general needs for the music programs of their church.
The introduction to the form states that Brunkresearched the scope of musical activity in the General Conference MennoniteChurches, for the encouragement of “devotional singing among the Brotherhood.”[56] The members of the committee used the information forreference on matters of congregational worship in the church and for thescheduling of regional singing schools.
The synthesis of two aspec