A Baptist History Question

Bro. Glen, I'm sure we all agree that history is not equivalent to scripture, in that scripture is inspired as no other authors are. But we can study history and piece together facts and arrive at certain conclusions. Probably one thing we do not realize or think about too much, is that history is "the facts, just the facts" (as I believe Bro. Jeff & Joe Friday already stated ). But where we run into problems then is the interpretation of those facts. And this is the part where we all begin to diverge. For example, there is no doubt that there is historical evidence that English Baptists had knowledge of and some connection to the Continental Anabaptists. But what does that mean? When we start to put that together into a meaningful "interpretation", Baptists come up with about 3 or 4 different ideas (unfortunately usually colored by what we already thought about it to begin with).

I have not read all through Ivey's Welsh Succession, so I will not comment on it in particular. But am I familiar with some other attempts to find a particularly Welsh-only succession. Most of these are motivated for one reason or another by a desire to avoid certain problems associated with an English succession. But personally I don't see how ignoring the English contributions to American Baptists could be considered much less than fantasy. Again, these things are not in reference to Ivey's book (because I've only looked at it and not read it all). But I know of one church "historian" who "traced" his church lineage completely around the Regular (Particular) Baptists. Now some east coast church organized in the 1600/1700's may be able to do that, but not some west coast church organized in the 1900's (and that one in particular certainly could not).

Just some scrambled thoughts that may not make much sense. Maybe they'll contribute a little.

 

Bro. Glen

Josephus is a difficult fellow. He was, as I understand it, a bit of a turn-coat (the Massada episode). So, I would always keep that in mind when considering what he wrote. I would rank apostolic writers in the highest rank (those writings which became the New Testament canon). Secondary to those would be the men generally termed the Church Fathers (2nd,3rd century writers). Of probably equal value for the historian would be public documents (which depending on the age in question, may or may not be available). In this rank, I would also want the archelogical evidence considered. The third rank of would be secular writers contemporary to the period (e.g., Josephus, Pliny the Elder, etc.) Works other than these would probably fall into the secondary source material category. Secondary source material is of wildly varying quality, so difficult to speculate on it except on a case by case basis. Strictly academic writers, however, would likely combind the sources as those who where contemporary witnesses, plus archeological evidence as primary source material. Other works would be considered secondary sources.

When considering secondary sources or heresay evidence, you have to look at the motivations of the writer. Were they trying to preserve history for the sake of history or did they have a political/religious point of view to advance.

For example, if you are basing your whole point of view of say the Paulicans on Roman Catholic documents, then there is likely to be a slanted view of the Paulicans. A better approach, though more difficult, would be to look at the Paulicans through their own eyes, through the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, and through non-religious eyes. The truth about the Paulicans, in this case, would likely mirror some of all three points of view, and would likely satisfy neither group who held strong views about the subject at hand.

Objectivity in history, as in most other "Soft science" is difficult to find. Some questions would come to mind when checking the objectivity of a deriviative work.
a. Did the writer look at all of the primary source material available? (Which can be a difficult task to do)
b. Did the writer consider this material (whether flawed or not)?
c. Did the writer have a strong investment in vindicating a point of view? (Was the author an internal or external writer).
d. Has the writer outlined a set of cogent questions for the inquiry? (The Who, what where, when, why and how discussed earlier).
e. Did the writer have an objective or point of view in mind before beginning the research? (Did the writer have a problem with a set of views and set out to change them, without regard for the historical evidence)?

So that, my dear brother, is a good part of the way a historical work should be evaluated. Other questions may arise on a case by case basis.

Hope it helps.

Jeff

 

Robert Vaughan wrote:

Bro. Robert

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

In the for what it is worth category, I don't know of any eastern Primitive Baptist or other Baptist church that could avoid links to English Baptists in some form or another. There might be some that were principally German, I am not competent to answer that question adequately. That said, there are some churches which seem to have sprung up which have spurious lineages or no lineage at all. (Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind). These folks claim to be Primitive Baptist, but they certainly don't act like it. Further, I have never met any Primitive Baptist who would have anything to do with them or know anything of their origins. With that said, there are no doubt others who are of the same or similar origins.

The notion of origins seems to be ingrained in the human psychological make up. It is instilled in us in the Bible. The genealogy of Christ is given twice in the canon. It seems to me to relate to the the notion of the chosen people, (This expresses itself notably in the idea that the 10 lost tribes of Israel ended up in the British Isles and eventually in America.) If you don't know your roots how can you know if you are of the chosen people? Some if they didn't like their true origins might try to find connections however misty to others they find more palitable. If they can't do that, then the alternative is to try to find evidence, however flimsy, to make those unpalitable roots a bit more savory.

I remain in the "For what its worth category."

Jeff

 

RSR wrote:

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. My first reaction would be coinkidink, but that is only a reaction, not an informed opinion or knowledge. I haven't read much history of the Campbellite movement, only a couple of books on that subject, and both were internal to that theology. Care to add your comments?

Jeff.

 

RSR

I was aware of the Redstone Association hullaballou. I suppose I should recuse myself from discussions on Campbellites, cause I can't stand their theology.

That all said, if you look at many of the original records of what became Baptists of today, they will have a phrase such as "The XX Regular (Separate/General) Baptist Church of Christ located at XXX." This practice went out of favor about the time of the Civil War. Course this is anecdotal evidence, since I obviously haven't reviewed every record book of ever Baptist Church, but it seems to have been a trend.

Another thing about the mid-point in the 19th century Baptists began refining their identification. While most Baptist churches of no matter what theological stripe in the antebellum period listed themselves in public records as simply Baptists. In the controversies of 1832-38 and again in 1845, Baptists seem to have drawn lines in the sand, and these additional modifers were often added to distinguish themselves from one another. There are clearly multiple types of Baptists prior to the American Civil War, but after the late unpleasantness, it becomes readily apparent which faction most of them are aligned with. Before the Civil War, it is not as easy.

Another controversey existed in parts of the southeastern United States between Primitive Baptists and Southern Baptists as to who had the historical claims to the past. Some of these writings (mid-19th century) are as bitter as any disagreement between Baptists and Campbellites. While most internal and external writers acknowledge Primitive Baptists as having the better claim to historical descent from English Particular Baptists, not all, even now, will admit to it. In truth, there have been variations from those theological positions held by the older Baptists by every current Baptist faction. It is a matter of degree. Again the devil is in the detials.

Hopefully I haven't offended Bro. Glen to much by the forgoing statement. If I have, I beg forgivness, but it is how I see it.

Jeff.

 

rsr, I think it may be probable that some of the controversies of the early 19th century, combined with the atmosphere of the times, debates between various denominations, etc. helped drive and develop the thinking about Baptist origins, and galvanized certain opinions in the minds of many. One mistake that some people make, though, is thinking that the belief by Baptists in their Apostolic origins came into being at this time.

Jeff, you said, "there have been variations from those theological positions held by the older Baptists by every current Baptist faction." I agree. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but it is my opinion that none of us are exactly like the older Baptists. And most Baptists can emphasize certain things about the 17th century Baptists (while conveniently forgetting others) and make it seem that they are exactly the same. I have seen almost every faction of Baptist attempt to do this, at least those who are interested in appearing the same as their forebears. But I don't think anyone can successfully refute the claim that Primitive Baptists are like the English Particular Baptists in more ways than any other group (at least in America). Now it is up to you all to prove that matters! Just kidding (partially), but a large number of 21st century Baptists do not think it matters.

Thankfully, Baptists don't have to be perfect to be the Lord's people, IMO.

 

rsr, I'd like to recommend a book that I found very interesting: Renewing God's People: A Concise History of Churches of Christ by Gary Holloway & Douglas A. Foster [Abilene Christian University Press, 2001]. I think it reveals some of the early spirit that allowed many of the diverse elements of the "Restoration" movement to move together. These writers would be probably considered "liberals" among the Campbell C'sOfC, and are critical of much of the bitter & divisive spirit that exists among them today.

 

That is a big part of it. But the ones I have been exposed to are thoroughly non-Calvinists (perhaps all of them). To top it off the ones I know are exceedingly arrogant. One that that will rile me more quickly than about anything else is arrogance. This trait seems to be pervasive (at least among the CofC's I know or have heard speak.

I would concur, however, that if one were compling a comprehensive history of Baptists (which would be a life-long project for several people) they have to be considered, as would some Pentecostal groups. One would also have to consider the points of view of the Churches of the Brethern, Mennonites, Amish (and all those groups more directly tied with European Continental anabaptists than American Baptists of various stripes are).

Jeff.

 

RLV wrote:

Glad I won't be out on that branch when someone comes along and tried to cut it off.

Agree, unfortunately. (Not that I am thinking it unfortunate you had that thought). Among Primitive Baptists, I think it was common in the 19th century and even today, there was an over-reaction to the advent of Southern Baptists and those who held similar views. A lot of Primitive Baptists are afraid of doing this or that because they will perceived as moderists. Case in point, our local newspaper has a church announcements page. I can't get my church to even submit our meeting times for publlication. They don't want to be seen as associating with those other churches that might be listed. IMO, that opinion is just a silly overreaction to events of the past. Our church is not on the main highway, and there are folks who might be interested, but dont even know about it.

In the wind up as our mountain people would say, it doenst matter. What matters is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The rest, it may appear, falls in the realm of foolish pastimes. (I don't completely agree with that last statement I just made. )

If they have to be perfect, I am in bad trouble.

 

Bro. Glen wrote:

Well see what a fine mess you have gotten us to this time Ollie?

 

rsr noted:

Arrogant Baptists can rile me pretty quickly too. It is one reason I don't post more. I try to hold my tounge (er, fingers) and let it go. We see in part, know in part, and look through a glass darkly. That comment of Paul's is one of the most important in scripture, but is too often ignored/overlooked.

But, friend, you have never exhibitied arrogance in what I have seen of your postings, and I appreicate that. It seems you are there with a kind word or gentle rebuke if necessary. One reason I listed you as one my nominees for member of the year.

Jeff

 

Made me think of a denominational writer talking about some of the Baptists up in the mountains of north Georgia. He said their worship services were more like holiness than Baptists. The truth is probably that those mountain Baptists that he thought were more like holiness were actually more like the Separate Baptists that brought the Baptist faith into those mountains than the majority of the Baptists of the Georgia Baptist Convention.

 

That had slipped my mind. Separate Baptists that I know do tend toward the Holiness sects that are deriviative of Methodism of the early 19th century. I have in times past attened Separate Baptist services, and heard some things from them that would seem more in keeping with the Weslyian tradition. Bro. Robert, have you ever had the opportunity to visit with any Separate Baptists.?

J.