BRETHREN-L Archives

Archiver > BRETHREN > 2008-07 > 1216394500


From: "Wayne Webb" <>
Subject: Re: [BRE] John H. of mention in the 1798 Annual Meeting
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:21:40 -0400
References: <mailman.293.1216364525.25423.brethren@rootsweb.com>


Morning Steven,

Thank you for pointing out the Universalism in America book. For people
who are seriously interested in reading about the differing views of
Pietism, at least as practiced in America in the colonial days, Eddy's book
is a well written primer. Yes, you do need to get past the Biblical and
theological references but as a general background source it is well
written.

What intrigues me to no end is that modern German Baptist historians
have chosen, or not been aware of, these various works. It could be that
they chose not to read it because it was not "German Baptist" in origin. Or
perhaps it was an ignorance of the not widely known aspect of Universalism
and Pietism having an impact on early German Baptist history.

I choose to take the moderate stand that it was because of a lack of
understanding of the impact. The longer I get in the tooth the more I
accept that this lack is because of self-imposed blinders to the
possibilities that other religious based concepts did have an impact. And
because the late 19th and early 20th Century German Baptist historians, sans
Cassel, did not write on the subject, writers of our time are not aware of
the larger impact.

Perhaps if more was known of George Adam Martin, both from a literary
and historical standpoint, we today would have a better understanding of the
roots of the German Baptist church in Pietism. While many modern historians
are aware of his problems with the accepted ruling councils of his day, it
is only recently becoming understood that he was somewhere in between Annual
Meeting Brethren, Ephrata Brethren and Universalists.

Just look at where he or his students in theology were and it soon
becomes apparent that our more moderate Annual Meeting Brethren were
constantly at odds with this Pietist based theology. We have the problems
in the Carolinas, which I believe also extended up into southern Virginia,
Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois and yes even into southern Ohio. And this "at
odds" relationship lasted long after Martin's demise. Read about the
Landisites, Eymanites (Oymanites) and any of the other short-lived sects and
stretch your imagination. Read between the lines!

Perhaps you might even say that Martin's Pietist impact lasted into to
the 1880s. Could we term the Old Orders as Annual Meeting Brethren of
Martin's day and the Progressive's as the Pietists of Martin's day? Martin
seemingly espoused a congregational based ruling body (each church ruled
itself) while the Annual Meeting Brethren of that era preferred a body of
elders ruling the entire body of the church. An interesting concept!
Perhaps I got the horse before the cart on that one. <grin>

Wayne Webb

----- Original Message -----
>
> Oddly enough, Ham was traditionally stated as being the John H by earlier
> historians.
> Mentioned without source in 1884 in Richard Eddy's UNIVERSALISM IN
> AMERICA,
> volume 1.
> H.K. Carroll stated this as well in a 1878 magazine article in SUNDAY
> AFTERNOON magazine.
>
> Going back further to 1848 is Dave Bennedict in the "General History of
> the
> Baptist Denomination in America...) claiming it was Ham. He puts these
> Dunker
> universalists in Green River County, Kentucky;
> southern Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa. I think Ive seen material from
> around this same time (1840s), but Im still working on putting my notes
> in order.
>
> steven rowe

This thread: