By Rhonda Westfall

Should we put on our Sesquicentennial thinking caps?

St. John's Episcopal Church gets well-deserved historic recognition

Boy, was my face red last week - but not because of the hot, humid weather.

Embarrassment caused the ruddy glow.

A message on my desk Monday morning alerted me to a mistake in a story from last week's Reminder on the placement of a Michigan Historical Marker at the Paine-Gillam-Scott Museum. Although I knew it wasn't the first location in St. Johns to be named a historic site, I wrote that the Museum would receive the first-ever marker in the city. Wrong.

A follow-up telephone call to the message-leaver, Shirley Pouch, revealed the true owner of that "first-ever marker" honor - St. John's Episcopal Church. As soon as Shirley began talking, an explosion went off in my tiny brain - of course, the Episcopal Church had one of those lovely, green plaques attached right on the side of the historic structure. How could I not have remembered that?

Fortunately, Shirley was very, very kind about the glaring error. In fact, she nearly apologized to me for having to bring the mistake to my attention. What a nice lady.

Later, after indicating to Shirley that I would write an article explaining my mistake and giving proper credit to the Episcopal Church, she came to my aid once more. A packet of information appeared at the Reminder office from Shirley's own files that thoroughly explains the historic significance of St. John's to the fledgling village of the mid-1800s, and its continuing impact on the growing community. Of particular interest were copies of articles from two of the newspapers near the turn of the century when St. John's was destroyed by fire, and rebuilt two years later.

"The Clinton Independent" reported on the April 17, 1892, Easter Sunday blaze as follows:

"Shortly after the Easter Day evening service the little church, which had been the scene of so much joy on that day, was discovered to be on fire, which, in some unknown manner, originated from the furnace in the basement. The alarm was promptly given and the fire department and citizens quickly responded and did all in their power to save the structure from utter ruin.

"But the creeping and rapidly spreading flames were so secreted under the floor and between the walls that it was impossible to reach them before they had accomplished their work of destruction, aided by a flood of water and a blackening smoke."

The article goes on to say that the building was insured for $2,000, "about one-half of its original cost, to say nothing of its furnishings which were worth at least $1,000." Those furnishings had been provided by ladies of the congregation, whose reaction to the fire was vividly described.

"When the ladies who had worked longest and most zealously in bringing this little house of worship and Sunday home comfort so near the stage of perfection, looked upon the ruins, their tears and expressions of sorrow and regret added magnitude to the scene of destruction and loss." The writing style may be a little wordy for current journalistic tastes, but it captures the scene of that day perfectly.

From the ashes of the Easter Sunday blaze, the resilient St. John's members quickly worked to erect a new house of worship. Just two years later on another Easter Sunday, March 25, 1894, the first service in the new building was held.

"The Clinton Republican" describes St. John's new home as follows: "The building is located at the corner of Meade and Walker streets, and is a beautiful brick structure, elaborately trimmed with rough, Ionia sandstone, and covered with a slate roof. The interior is finished in quartered oak, and the workmanship cannot be surpassed anywhere. "The windows are marvels of beauty. The Good Shepherd window in the south over the altar has a large figure of the Savior carrying a lamb in His arms. It was the gift of the Sunday School and cost $150." The article concludes with more details on the design of the church, and financial data.

"The church, as it stands, cost about $10,000. About $7,000 was subscribed two years ago, all of which has been collected except about $600… This leaves the society $4,000 in debt, but the same devoted perseverance that has accomplished so much will be sure to finish the work in good time."

And, of course, it was.

By May 18, 1898, the debt was paid off - well in advance of St. John's 40th anniversary celebration in 1904.

The lovely brick building has seen many times of joy - and sorrow - in the years following. Its members have welcomed guests from near and far when it served as a stop on numerous Home Tours, and since it was placed on the Michigan Register of Historic Sites in 1980.

It's a true landmark in our community - and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to correct my mistake and give St. John's the recognition it deserves.

Thanks, Shirley for accepting my apology, and for providing the wonderful information that allowed all our readers to take a step back in time.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Just one closing comment from a column that ran several weeks ago related to the Centennial Pine at the Clinton County Courthouse and the time capsule buried nearby.

Former St. Johns resident, Steve Jilka, sent an email message expressing a keen interest in making sure the contents of the capsule are secured. He also noted that the idea for planting a "Millennium Pine" to replace the Centennial tree which will be removed to make way for the new courthouse was worth considering.

He even took the process a step further - to the Sesquicentennial of St. Johns in 2006. That date for celebrating the 150th anniversary is really not too far away.

Steve questioned whether any thought had been given to the city's Sesquicentennial. I don't have an answer, but I agree that some pretty detailed advance planning will be required.

With new schools, a new library, renovations to Clinton Memorial Hospital, the construction of Clinton Commons by the Clinton Area Care Center - and the multi-million courthouse building - there will certainly be lots to celebrate in 2006.

How about it, City Commissioners - should we put our Sesquicentennial thinking caps on?